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 § 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 1 and 3-4 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.
Claim 1 recites “a strain generating body with a circular opening. This limitation is in contradiction to the embodiments shown in the description. Paragraph 0014 discloses “In order to close the opening on the upper surface side of the housing 10, a substantially disk-shaped strain generating body 20 is fixed by an adhesive or the like.” Accordingly, it is not the strain generating body that comprises a circular opening, but instead the strain generating body covers a circular opening on the upper surface of the housing.
Claim 1 recites a term “SUS.” From the description (paragraph 0024), the term SUS is meant to mean “stainless steel.”
Claims 3 and 4 depend on claim 1.
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshige, JP2002078689 (Applicant submitted with translation) in view of Yamashita et al., US Pat. 7,812,261.
Regarding claim 1, Oshige teaches a pulse wave sensor (see at least fig. 6 and paragraph 0001) comprising:
a strain generating body (1, 2) with a circular opening (according to the current application, the “circular opening” refers to “The region inside the circular dashed line may be called a circular opening.” Figs. 1b and 6 of Oshige show a region inside the circular wall 2); and
a strain gauge provided on the strain generating body (“PA”; see paragraph 0009 and figs. 1b and 6).
Oshige further teaches that the material of the strain generating body is not limited to stainless steel, copper or aluminum (see paragraph 0008), and further define the specific diameter d (mm) and thickness t (mm). That is, Oshige teaches the diameter of the housing, which is the same as the diameter of the circular opening of 5 mm to 10 mm (see paragraph 0008) and the thickness of the strain generating body ranges from “several dozen micrometers” to “several hundred micrometers.”
Oshige teaches the claimed invention except for the strain gauge including a Cr mixed phase film as a resistor.
Yamashita teaches a strain gauge, wherein the resistor comprises of nickel-chromium. Yamashita teaches that due to a large resistance change, the nickel-chromium alloy yields a highly sensitive strain gauge (col. 4, lines 23-26).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the nickel-chromium strain gauge will increase the reliability of the pulse wave sensor of Oshige.
Regarding claim 2, Oshige teaches a pulse wave sensor (see at least fig. 6 and paragraph 0001) comprising:
a strain generating body (1, 2); and
a strain gauge provided on the strain generating body (“PA” in figs. 1b, 6 and paragraph 0009),
wherein the strain generating body includes:
a base portion with a circular opening (flat outer portion of the dome 12; see fig. 6);
a beam portion bridging an inside of the base portion portions in between openings 12a; see fig. 6); and
a load portion provided on the beam portion (according to the present application, paragraph 0017, a “load portion” is a portion on which the load is applied as the shape of 12 in fig. 6 of Oshige is convex load is applied to the portion PA. That, the center portion is a “load portion.”),
wherein the strain generating body is in a form of a flat plate (Oshige teaches the flat plate as much as “a flat plate” body shown in the current specification. Also see figs. 1b and 6 of Oshige.), and wherein arterial pulses are detected based on a change in a resistance value of the
resistor in response to a deformation of the strain generating body (see the Abstract of Oshige).
Oshige teaches the claimed invention except for the strain gauge including a Cr mixed phase film as a resistor.
Yamashita teaches a strain gauge, wherein the resistor comprises of nickel-chromium. Yamashita teaches that due to a large resistance change, the nickel-chromium alloy yields a highly sensitive strain gauge (col. 4, lines 23-26).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the nickel-chromium strain gauge will increase the reliability of the pulse wave sensor of Oshige.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Oshige teaches the pulse wave sensor according to claim 1, wherein the strain generating body includes:
a base portion with a circular opening (flat outer portion of the dome 12; see fig. 6);
a beam portion bridging an inside of the base portion in between openings 12a; see fig. 6);
a load portion provided on the beam portion (according to the present application, paragraph 0017, a “load portion” is a portion on which the load is applied as the shape of 12 in fig. 6 of Oshige is convex load is applied to the portion PA. That, the center portion is a “load portion.”); and
wherein the strain generating body is in a form of a flat plate (Oshige teaches the flat plate as much as “a flat plate” body shown in the current specification. Also see figs. 1b and 6 of Oshige.), and wherein arterial pulses are detected based on a change in a resistance value of the
resistor in response to a deformation of the strain generating body (see the Abstract of Oshige).
Regarding claim 5, Oshige teaches the pulse wave sensor according to claim 4, wherein the beam portion has two beams that cross each other in a cross shape in a plan view, wherein a region where the two beams cross includes a center of the circular opening, and wherein the load portion is provided on the region where the two beams cross (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Oshige teaches the length of each of the beams is approximately equal to the diameter of the circular opening (see figs. 1b and 6 of Oshige).
Regarding claim 8, Oshige teaches the width other than the region where the two beams cross is constant in each of the beams (the beams are same in shape and/or size; see fig. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 is 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 prior art does not teach or suggest the pulse wave sensor, wherein “the pulse wave sensor includes four strain gauges, wherein two of the four strain gauges are positioned on a portion of the beam close to the load portion with a first direction as a longitudinal direction, SO that the two of the four strain gauges face each other across the load portion in the plan view, and
wherein the other two of the four strain gauges are positioned on a portion of the beam close to the base portion with a second direction perpendicular to the first direction as a longitudinal direction, so that the other two of the four strain gauges face each other across the load portion in the plan view.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYUNG S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1994. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM M-F.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/KYUNG S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights