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 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 3-5; 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).
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 a first planar center portion, and wherein each strain element has electrically conductive ends joined (vapor deposited; Column 5, lines 5-8) to the first planar center portion and electrically conductive terminal pads (Figure 3, annotated below, on chip 5; Column 5, lines 28-31) 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), and wherein one end of each electrical wire 4 is jointed to a conductive end on the first planar center portion and another end is joined to a conductive terminal pad (on chip 5) removed from the first planar center portion, each electrical wire having a portion being spaced apart from the first flexure (Figure 2A, annotated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
369
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
384
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 having electrically conductive ends joined (vapor deposited; Column 5, lines 5-8) to the first planar center portion and electrically conductive terminal pads (Figure 3, annotated above, on chip 5; Column 5, lines 28-31on chip 5) are joined to the first flexure remote from the electrically conductive ends, and wherein an electrical wires 4 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, 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 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);
- wherein one end of each electrical wire 4 is jointed to a conductive end on the first planar center portion and another end is joined to a conductive terminal pad (on chip 5) removed from the first planar center portion, each electrical wire having a portion being spaced apart from the first flexure (Figure 2A, annotated above).
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 spaced apart 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claims 1-3, 7-10 and 12-15.
On pages 9-10 of the response, with respect to claims 1-3, Applicant argues that the second extension arm 122 of Meyer is not perpendicular to either first flexure 18,22, based on Figure 4 of Meyer. However, Applicant is asserting, without properly claiming, that the projection of second flexure onto the first flexure must intersect in a perpendicular fashion. Whereas the Examiner has asserted, as best shown in Figure 5 of Meyer, that the second flexure 122 is orthogonal to each first flexure 18 and 22, because surface 18c (22c) is considered orthogonal to element 122 (Figure 5; annotated below). Perhaps Applicant could amend the claims to better reflect in which orientation, plane, and/or direction orthogonality is required.
PNG
media_image3.png
304
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is further argued that the first and second flexures do not create a “pivot axis”. Applicant clarified claim 11 to reflect that the intended “pivot axis” is an axis about which the first and second flexures rotate, but this amendment and requirement is not shown in Claim 1. According to Meyer, the flexure 122 extend approximately through a point of inflection of each first flexure 18,22 (Column 4, lines 35-49), whereby, this point is considered a zero-stress pivot axis about which the flexure could bend under stress. It is noted, again, that the claimed “pivot axis” is not stated as being related to any other structure and Applicant’s arguments that the flexures should pivot about this point are moot because claim 1, at least, does not reflect this requirement. Perhaps claim 1 should additionally be amended to require what, if anything, is required to actually pivot about the pivot axis, because otherwise the creation of a virtual pivot axis provides zero functionality or additional structural limitations. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-3 is maintained.
Continuing on pages 10-11, of the response, with respect to claims 7-8 and 12, specifically, Applicant argues that the invention by Nishida fails to disclose that one end of each electrical wire 4 is joined to a conductive end of the strain elements 13-1:13-4 and another end is joined to a conductive terminal end (on chip 5), such that each wire 4 is spaced apart from the flexure (vertical spacing shown in Figure 2A). It would appear that Applicant is asserting that the “joined” is direct joining, whereby element 14-1:14-4 and 15-1:15-4 would be interposed between the wire and conductive ends of the strain element and thus would fail to meet the claim limitations. However, this limitation is not claimed. Being that the electrical path is maintained through elements 14-1:14-4 and 15-1:15-4 to wire 4, the Examiner maintains that the terminal pads on chip 5 are joined to the conductive ends of the strain elements 13-1:13-4 through the wire 4. Perhaps Applicant could amend the claims to more appropriately reflect that which they are arguing. Therefore, the rejection of claims 7-8(9-10) and 12-13(14-15) is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 16-20 are allowed.
Considering claim 11, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of an extensometer structure having a cross-flexure assembly formed between a first extension arm and a second extension arm remote from a first specimen mount and a second specimen mount, wherein the first extension arm and the second extension arm are orthogonal to form a pivot axis about which the first extension arm and the second extension arm pivot relative to each other, the second body of the second flexure extending only on one side of the first body of the first flexure from the first extension arm to the second extension arm and the first body of the first flexure extending only on one side of the second body of the second flexure from the first extension arm to the second extension arm.
The invention by Meyer utilizes at least two pivot axes for relative bending, and thus fails to anticipated the claims.
Considering claim 16, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of an extensometer structure having a cross-flexure assembly comprising a first flexure comprising only a single first body joined to and extending between the first extension arm and the second extension arm, a second flexure 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 and a third flexure 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 and a plurality of strain sensors joined to the third planar center portion.
The invention by Meline teaches the use of strain gauges on the first and second vertical flexures, but not on the third horizontal, intersecting flexure. The invention by Meyer ‘430 also discloses first vertical and second flexures with strain gauges and a third flexure with strain gauges. However, Meyer ‘430 does not explicitly disclose placing the instrumented third intersection horizontal flexure between two instrumented or non-instrumented vertical flexures. At best, Meyer ‘430 suggests the use a horizontal instrumented flexure, but not placed between the vertical flexures. One of ordinary skill in the art would look at Meyer ‘430 and consider either instrumenting the vertical flexures in a cross-flexure assembly or providing a rigid vertical assembly with a horizontal cross-flexure therein.
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 second flexure with each end of the second flexure remote from a second planar center portion is wider than the second planar center portion in the direction parallel to the pivot axis, in combination with the remainder of the preceding base limitations of claims 1-3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights