DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the electrically conductive layers, as claimed in claim 2 must be shown and numerically identified or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2,3,5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 it is unclear from the drawings and specification what structure applicants consider to be the “electrically conductive layers”. These should be numerically identified.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by FR 2,126,842.
Regarding claim 1, as broadly claimed, FR ‘842 shows in figures 1-8:
A force-measuring device (fig 1, ->10) in a sprung chassis of a vehicle (fig 5) having a superstructure 48 and an axle 52 conjointly defining a force transmission path therebetween, the vehicle further having a plurality of spring elements 47 arranged in said force transmission path between said axle 52 and said superstructure 48; said force-measuring device comprising: a load-bearing element 57,58 arranged in said force transmission path between said superstructure and said axle in such a way that said spring elements are each connected to said axle and/or to said superstructure via said load-bearing element 57,58; said load-bearing element being made substantially of an elastically deformable plastic or of an elastomeric material (fig 1, fig 3); said load-bearing element including a plurality of electrically conductive elements 19,20 mutually spaced apart and insulated from one another via said elastically deformable plastic or said elastomeric material 11-16; and, said plurality of electrically conductive elements being variable absolutely and/or relative to one another with respect to position thereof or geometry thereof by a deformation of said load-bearing element effected under load and so generating a detectable electrical quantity proportional to the elastic deformation of said load-bearing element. See the discussion in the machine translation.
Regarding claim 17 in light of the discussion above, and as broadly claimed, these limitations are capable of being met.
Regarding claim 2, subject to the drawing and 112 rejection above, (and as best understood) these limitations are capable of being met. Note the load bearing element shown in figures 1 and 3 of FR ‘842 uses electrodes 19,20 separated by dielectric material 11-16.
Regarding claim 3 FR ‘842 shows in figures 1 or 3 that the electrically conductive elements are mutually spaced apart and are arranged within the load-bearing element and form a ‘capacitive resistor’, as broadly claimed, having a capacitance which is variable in proportion to the elastic deformation of said load-bearing element and is detectable.
Regarding claim 4, as readily apparent from figures 1 or 3, these limitations are met, as broadly claimed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5,6,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR ‘842 in view of Nakazaki et al. 5,681,998.
Regarding claims 5,6 as broadly claimed, FR ‘842 lacks specifically showing ‘groups’ of the electrically conductive elements, as claimed.
However the reference to Nakazaki indicates in at least figures 6,10,12, and 18 that more than one of the electrically conductive elements, or sensors 47,57,78,79 could be used to generate an ‘electrical quantity’ that is proportional to the load applied thereto.
Dependent upon the specific type of vehicle suspension one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used more than one of the electrically conductive elements shown in figures 1 or 3 of FR ‘842 as such a modification would merely amount to an obvious duplication of parts.
Regarding claim 15 Nakazaki indicates that the suspension system shown is that of a truck.
Therefore FR ‘842 is also capable of use with the chassis of a truck.
Claim(s) 7,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR ‘842 in view of Sonderegger et al. 5,265,481.
Regarding claims 7,8 FR ‘842 lacks specifically showing an ‘electric current generator’, of the type claimed.
The reference to Sonderegger shows in figures 1-14 a force sensor that can be used to determine axle loads on a vehicle that uses a piezo element 3-5 as an ‘electric current generator’, as broadly claimed.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used some type of ‘piezo element’ as broadly claimed in the load bearing element of FR ‘842 as a substitution of the elements 11-16; 19,20, as taught by Sonderegger at 3-5 simply as the substitution of one well known type of axle load sensor type arrangement over another that could simply depend upon costs and availability.
Claim(s) 9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR ‘842 in view of May U.S. 2014/0117598.
Regarding claim 9, although an electric circuit is shown in figures 7,8 FR ‘842 lacks specifically showing a signal processor that transmits an output signal indicative of a measured load to an external receiver.
However this capability is believed to be inherent in the system of FR ‘842 given the objective of the device.
Nevertheless the reference to May shows a vehicle suspension arrangement that is capable of measuring a pay load condition. Note this system is a wireless system. As stated in para 0044:
[0044] The output signals of these sensors may be provided to the control unit or to any other kind of evaluation unit in an untreated, analogue format or in a processed format, including using means for digital signal processing.
However, see paras 0012,0057,0083 and 0087 in their entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art would realize that the system of FR ‘842 likely has, or could be modified, to include a control and signal processing equipment w/ an external receiver, to indicate the measured load on the vehicles axles to an external observer or driver of the vehicle in a wireless system.
Regarding claim 10 in light of the modification above, these limitations are fairly suggested.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR ‘842 in view of Nishimura et al. 10,422,685.
Regarding claims 11-13 FR ‘842 lacks specifically showing the load bearing element of figures 1 or 3 in the form of a damping element.
The reference to Nishimura shows in figures 1 and 2 a load bearing element 100 for a leaf spring /axle arrangement 10,13 having a sensor arrangement 21,22 and damping element(s) 16,18. This is considered to be a damper block, as broadly claimed.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the load bearing element of figures 1 or 3 in FR ‘842 into a ‘damper block’, as broadly claimed, simply to adapt the device to a different suspension arrangement and/or vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, in light of the discussion above FR ‘842, as modified, meets the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR ‘842 in view of Weldon, JR US. 2007/0006652.
Regarding claim 16 FR ‘842 lacks specifically comparing the loaded condition of a vehicle with an unloaded condition of the vehicle to determine the actual weight of the vehicle.
The reference to shows a load measuring system to determine the load on a vehicle and claims in claim 18:
The method of claim 17, wherein the calculation of a load applied to the vehicle includes comparing measurements from the vehicle while loaded with calibration data for the vehicle under unloaded and known load situations.
It would have been obvious to have modified the system of FR ‘842 with the capability of Weldon to determine the actual weight of the vehicle by comparing sensed loaded and unloaded conditions of the vehicle since the actual weight of the vehicle may be needed for traveling conditions and expenses (estimated travel times, handling conditions, gas, etc.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
3/1/26