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 .
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 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer (US 5819428 A).
Considering claim 1, Meyer discloses an extensometer structure comprising:
- a first extension arm 12 having a first mount 52 configured to support a first specimen engaging member 50 (Figures 3-4; Column 4, lines 17-44; Column 3, lines 11-30);
- a second extension arm 14 having a second mount 62 configured to support a second specimen engaging member 60 (Figures 3-4; Column 4, lines 17-44; Column 3, lines 11-30); and
- a cross-flexure assembly 120 formed between the first extension arm 12 and
the second extension arm 14 remote from the first mount 52 and the second
mount 62, the cross-flexure assembly comprising:
- a first flexure 18,22 joined to and extending between the first extension arm 12 and the second extension arm 14 (Figures 3-4; Column 2, line 41 – Column 3, line 10); and
a second flexure 122 joined to and extending between the first extension arm 12 and the second extension arm 14 and orthogonal to the first flexure 18,22 to form a pivot axis (Figures 3-4; Column 4, lines 4-14, lines 55-60);
- the second flexure 122 extending only on one lateral side of the first flexure 18,22 from the first extension arm 12 to the second extension arm 14 (Figure 3; Column 4, lines 35-49); and
- the first flexure 18,22 extending only on one lateral side of the second flexure 122 from the first extension arm 12 to the second extension arm 14 (Figure 3; Column 4, lines 35-49).
Considering claim 2, Meyer discloses the first flexure 18,22 comprises a first planar center portion and the second flexure 122 comprises a second planar center portion, the pivot axis extending at least proximate the first planar center portion and the second planar second portion (Figures 3-4; Column 4, lines 35-49).
Considering claim 3, Meyer discloses that each end of the first flexure 18,22 remote from the first planar center portion is wider than the first planar center portion in a direction parallel to the pivot axis (Figure 3).
Considering claim 11, Meyer discloses an extensometer structure comprising:
- a first extension arm 12 having a first mount 52 configured to support a first specimen engaging member 50 (Figures 3-4; Column 4, lines 17-44; Column 3, lines 11-30);
- a second extension arm 14 having a second mount 62 configured to support a second specimen engaging member 60 (Figures 3-4; Column 4, lines 17-44; Column 3, lines 11-30); and
- a cross-flexure assembly 120 formed between the first extension arm 12 and the second extension arm 14 remote from the first mount 52 and the second mount 62, the cross-flexure assembly comprising:
- a first flexure 18,22 being only a single first body joined to and extending between the first extension arm 12 and the second extension arm 14 (Figures 3-4; Column 2, line 41 – Column 3, line 10; Column 4, line 57-59); and
- a second flexure 122 being only a single second body joined to and extending between the first extension arm 12 and the second extension arm 14 and orthogonal to the first flexure 18,22 to form a pivot axis (Figures 3-4; Column 4, lines 4-14, lines 17-23, lines 55-60);
- the second body of the second flexure 122 extending only on one lateral side of the first flexure 18,22 from the first extension arm 12 to the second extension arm 14 (Figure 3; Column 4, lines 35-49); and
- the first body of the first flexure 18,22 extending only on one lateral
side of the second flexure 122 from the first extension arm 12 to the
second extension arm 14 (Figure 3; Column 4, lines 35-49).
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meline (US 3789508 A).
Considering claim 16, Meline discloses an extensometer structure comprising:
- a first extension arm 11 having a first mount 22 configured to support a first specimen engaging member 20 (Figure 1; Column 2, lines 4-54);
- a second extension arm 12 having a second mount 27 configured to support a second specimen engaging member 21 (Figure 1; Column 2, lines 4-54); and
- a cross-flexure assembly formed between the first extension arm and the second extension arm remote from the first mount and the second mount, the cross-flexure assembly comprising:
- a first flexure 13 comprising only a single first body joined to and extending between the first extension arm and the second extension arm (Figures 1-2 and 4; Column 2, lines 55-60);
- a second flexure 13 comprising only a single second body joined to and extending between the first extension arm and the second extension arm parallel to and spaced apart from the first flexure (Figures 1-2 and 4; Column 2, lines 55-60); and
- a third flexure 37 comprising only a single third body joined to and extending between the first extension arm and the second extension arm and orthogonal to the first flexure to form a first pivot axis with the first body and orthogonal to the second flexure to form a second pivot axis, the third flexure being disposed between the first flexure and the second flexure and having a third planar center portion formed between opposed ends (Figures 1-2 and 4; Column 2, line 61 – Column 3, line 7).
Considering claim 17, Meline discloses that a first extension arm longitudinal axis and a second extension arm longitudinal axis define a common plane that intersects with the third body (Figures 1 and 3-4).
Considering claim 18, Meline discloses that the common plane bisects the third body (Figures 1 and 3-4).
Considering claim 20, Meline discloses that one end of the first flexure is joined to one end of the second flexure and opposite ends of the first flexure and the second flexure are spaced apart so as to form a U-shaped structure (Figure 4).
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 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 5819428 A) in view of Nishida et al. (US 5181417 A).
Considering claim 7, Meyer discloses the use of strain elements 31 that are joined to the first planar center portion (Figures 3-4; Column 2, lines 57-60), but fails to disclose the use of terminal pads and a plurality of wires.
However, Nishida teaches a flexure element 1a having a plurality of strain elements 13-1:13-4 joined to the first planar center portion, and wherein each strain element has electrically conductive ends 14-1:14-4 joined to the first planar center portion and electrically conductive terminal pads (on chip 5) are joined to the first flexure remote from the electrically conductive ends, and wherein a plurality of electrical wires 4 individually electrically connect a terminal pad (on chip 5) to one of the electrically conductive ends (Figures 2-3; Column 4, lines 1-20, line 65 – Column 5, line 8, lines 20-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a wire connecting the strain element conductive ends to a terminal pad displaced from the center portion of the flexure, as suggested by Nishida, in the invention by Meyer. The motivation for doing so is reduce deterioration on a lead wire outlet by relocating it away from the sensing area, as generally suggested by Nishida (Column 4, lines 21-37).
Considering claim 8, Meyer discloses the use of strain elements 31 that are joined to the first planar center portion (Figures 3-4; Column 2, lines 57-60), but fails to disclose the use of terminal pads and a plurality of wires.
However, Nishida teaches a flexure element 1a having a first strain element 13-1 joined has electrically conductive ends 14-1 joined to the first planar center portion and electrically conductive terminal pads (on chip 5) are joined to the first flexure remote from the electrically conductive ends, and wherein an electrical wires 4 individually electrically connect a terminal pad (on chip 5) to at least one of the electrically conductive ends (Figures 2-3; Column 4, lines 1-20, line 65 – Column 5, line 8, lines 20-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a wire connecting the strain element conductive ends to a terminal pad displaced from the center portion of the flexure, as suggested by Nishida, in the invention by Meyer. The motivation for doing so is reduce deterioration on a lead wire outlet by relocating it away from the sensing area, as generally suggested by Nishida (Column 4, lines 21-37).
Considering claim 9, Meyer discloses the use of strain elements 31 that are joined to the first planar center portion (Figures 3-4; Column 2, lines 57-60), but fails to disclose the use of terminal pads.
However, 9. The extensometer structure of claim 8, wherein the terminal pads are joined to the first flexure remote from the first planar center portion.
However, Nishida teaches that the electrically conductive terminal pads (on chip 5) are joined to the first flexure remote from the first planar center portion (Figures 2-3; Column 4, lines 1-20, line 65 – Column 5, line 8, lines 20-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a wire connecting the strain element conductive ends to a terminal pad displaced from the center portion of the flexure, as suggested by Nishida, in the invention by Meyer. The motivation for doing so is reduce deterioration on a lead wire outlet by relocating it away from the sensing area, as generally suggested by Nishida (Column 4, lines 21-37).
Considering claim 10, Meyer discloses that the each end of the first flexure 18,22 is thicker than the first planar center portion in a direction normal to the first planar center portion (Figure 3).
Considering claim 12, Meyer discloses an extensometer structure comprising:
- a first extension arm 12 having a first mount 52 configured to support a first specimen engaging member 50 (Figures 3-4; Column 4, lines 17-44; Column 3, lines 11-30);
- a second extension arm 14 having a second mount 62 configured to support a second specimen engaging member 60 (Figures 3-4; Column 4, lines 17-44; Column 3, lines 11-30); and
- a cross-flexure assembly 120 formed between the first extension arm 12 and the second extension arm 14 remote from the first mount 52 and the second mount 62, the cross-flexure assembly comprising:
- a first flexure 18,22 joined to and extending between the first extension arm 12 and the second extension arm 14, the first flexure 18,22 having a first planar center portion between opposite ends (Figures 3-4; Column 2, line 41 – Column 3, line 10; Column 4, line 57-59); and
- a second flexure 122 joined to and extending between the first extension arm 12 and the second extension arm 14 and orthogonal to the first flexure 18,22 to form a pivot axis (Figures 3-4; Column 4, lines 4-14, lines 17-23, lines 55-60).
The invention by Meyer discloses the use of strain elements 31 that are joined to the first planar center portion (Figures 3-4; Column 2, lines 57-60), but fails to disclose the use of terminal pads and a plurality of wires.
However, Nishida teaches a flexure element 1a having a plurality of strain elements 13-1:13-4 joined to the first planar center portion, and wherein each strain element has electrically conductive ends 14-1:14-4 joined to the first planar center portion and electrically conductive terminal pads (on chip 5) are joined to the first flexure remote from the electrically conductive ends, and wherein a plurality of electrical wires 4 individually electrically connect a terminal pad (on chip 5) to one of the electrically conductive ends (Figures 2-3; Column 4, lines 1-20, line 65 – Column 5, line 8, lines 20-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a wire connecting the strain element conductive ends to a terminal pad displaced from the center portion of the flexure, as suggested by Nishida, in the invention by Meyer. The motivation for doing so is reduce deterioration on a lead wire outlet by relocating it away from the sensing area, as generally suggested by Nishida (Column 4, lines 21-37).
Considering claim 13, Meyer discloses the use of strain elements 31 that are joined to the first planar center portion (Figures 3-4; Column 2, lines 57-60), but fails to disclose the use of terminal pads and a plurality of wires.
However, Nishida teaches a flexure element 1a having a first strain element 13-1 joined has electrically conductive ends 14-1 joined to the first planar center portion and electrically conductive terminal pads (on chip 5) are joined to the first flexure remote from the electrically conductive ends, and wherein an electrical wires 4 individually electrically connect a terminal pad (on chip 5) to at least one of the electrically conductive ends (Figures 2-3; Column 4, lines 1-20, line 65 – Column 5, line 8, lines 20-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a wire connecting the strain element conductive ends to a terminal pad displaced from the center portion of the flexure, as suggested by Nishida, in the invention by Meyer. The motivation for doing so is reduce deterioration on a lead wire outlet by relocating it away from the sensing area, as generally suggested by Nishida (Column 4, lines 21-37).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 5819428 A) in view of Nishida et al. (US 5181417 A), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Caldwell (US 6236095 B1).
Considering claim 14, Meyer discloses that the first planar center portion is thinner than each of the ends, and wherein a tapered section connects each of the ends to the first planar center planar portion (Figure 3), but fails to disclose that the terminal pads are disposed on one of the ends, however, Meyer, as modified by Nishida, already discloses such feature, as outlined in claims 12-13 above, but the combination fails to explicitly disclose that the electrical wires extend over the tapered section.
However, Caldwell teaches using a wire bond 31a to bridge the taper section between a flat planer section 22 and an end section of thereof (Figures 1-2; Column 3, lines 26-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize wire bonding to bridge the tapered section of the flexure of Meyer, as modified by Nishida, as taught by Caldwell. The motivation for doing so is to more accurately and sensitively measure localized forces because the wire bond connections mechanically decoupled the strain gauges from the flexure in undesired areas.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 5819428 A) in view of Nishida et al. (US 5181417 A), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Caldwell (US 6236095 B1), as applied to claim 14 above, and furthermore in view of Meline et al. (US 4831738).
Considering claim 15, Meyer, as modified by Nishida and Caldwell, fails to disclose that the second flexure is U-shaped.
However, Meline suggests the use of U-shaped flexures 30 (Figures 1 and 5; Column 3, lines 27-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a U-shaped flexure, as taught by Meline, in the invention by Meyer, as modified by Nishida and Caldwell. It has long been held that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, to meet the design requirements of the desired structure, one would be motivated to utilize the U-shaped flexures of Meline.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meline (US 3789508 A) in view of Meyer (US 5712430) and Nishida et al. (US 5181417 A).
Considering claim 19, Meline fails to disclose a first strain element having electrically conductive ends joined to the third planar center portion.
However, Meyer teaches a first strain element having electrically conductive ends joined to the third planar center portion (Figure 2; Column 4, lines 48-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a strain element on the third flexure, as suggested by Meyer, in the invention by Meline. The motivation for doing so is to provide redundancy , as suggested by Meyer.
The invention by Meline, as modified by Meyer, fails to disclose at least one electrically conductive terminal pad is joined to the third flexure remote from the electrically conductive ends, and wherein an electrical wire electrically connects the at least one electrically conductive terminal pad to one of the electrically conductive ends.
However, Nishida teaches a flexure element 1a having a plurality of strain elements 13-1:13-4 joined to the first planar center portion, and wherein each strain element has electrically conductive ends 14-1:14-4 joined to the first planar center portion and electrically conductive terminal pads (on chip 5) are joined to the first flexure remote from the electrically conductive ends, and wherein a plurality of electrical wires 4 individually electrically connect a terminal pad (on chip 5) to one of the electrically conductive ends (Figures 2-3; Column 4, lines 1-20, line 65 – Column 5, line 8, lines 20-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a wire connecting the strain element conductive ends to a terminal pad displaced from the center portion of the flexure, as suggested by Nishida, in the invention by Meline, as modified by Meyer. The motivation for doing so is reduce deterioration on a lead wire outlet by relocating it away from the sensing area, as generally suggested by Nishida (Column 4, lines 21-37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Considering claim 4, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of an extensometer structure having a first flexure extending only on one lateral side of a second flexure from the first extension arm to the second extension arm, the second flexure extending only on one lateral side of the first flexure from the first extension arm to the second extension arm, wherein each end of the first flexure remote from the first planar center portion is wider than the first planar center portion in a direction parallel to the pivot axis and wherein each end of the second flexure remote from the second planar center portion is wider than the second planar center portion in the direction parallel to the pivot axis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE102012100942A1, DE112017005469T5, EP3205998A1, US20140331776A1 and US5074152A each disclose the use of wire bonding extending from a strain gauge element on a planar center area over a tapered section and connected to an end section on the other side of the taper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 September 21, 2025