DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 5/20/2026, with respect to claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112a and 35 USC 112b rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026, with respect to claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior arts fail to teach the amended claim language “wherein a film thickness of the resistor is greater than or equal to 6 nm and less than or equal to 100 nm, and wherein a creep amount and a creep recovery amount measured when the strain gauge is installed on the Roberval-type strain generator are less than or equal to +0.0735%.” Applicant argues that creep amount and creep recovery are not taught by any of the prior arts, and that the claimed thickness range is “not merely an arbitrary design choice”. The remarks state “when the film thickness of the resistor is 6 nm or more and 100 nm or less, the strain gauge mounted on the Roberval-type strain generator satisfies the Cl accuracy class requirement, i.e., that the creep amount and the creep recovery amount are each within +0.0735%.” This establishes the fact that the film thickness, within the claimed range, directly results in a creep amount and creep recovery within +0.0735%.
While it is true that the prior arts do not explicitly use the words “creep amount” and “creep recovery amount”, Sato does teach in [0027], “The thickness of the resistor 30 is not particularly restricted, and can be appropriately selected for any purpose. The thickness can be, for example, approximately between 0.05 μm and 2 μm.” This range, when converted into nm is 50nm to 2000nm. This encompasses the claimed film thickness range of 6nm to 100nm. If the claimed range of 6nm to 100nm results in a creep amount and creep recovery amount within +0.0735%, then that the film thickness, which encompasses the claimed range, in Sato would also result in a creep amount and creep recovery amount within +0.0735%. The concept of having a range for the film thickness has been established in Sato, and it is well understood that thin film resistors have a high creep amount and thick film resistors have a low creep amount. Adjusting the thickness to achieve an optimal creep amount, or desired creep amount, would be obvious since it would optimize the performance of the sensor. Since Sato teaches a range for the film thickness that fully encompasses the claimed range of 6nm to 100nm, Sato also reads upon “wherein a creep amount and a creep recovery amount measured when the strain gauge is installed on the Roberval-type strain generator are less than or equal to +0.0735%” since film thickness directly influences creep amount. For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato US 20220390301 in view of Sato US 20150292965 (hereafter known as ‘965).
As to claim 1, Sato teaches “A strain gauge (Abstract), comprising: a substrate having flexibility (Element 10; Abstract); and a resistor formed of a film that includes Cr, CrN, and Cr2N over the substrate (Element 30; [0002]), wherein a film thickness of the resistor is greater than or equal to 6 nm and less than or equal to 100 nm ([0027]), wherein a creep amount and a creep recovery amount measured when the strain gauge is installed are less than or equal to ±0.0735% ([0027]; this claim limitation pertain to the characteristics of the resistor, and the resistor and its description in the prior art meet the claimed thickness limitations. Since these limitations are met, the resistor in Sato would also have the same creep amount since it is known that creep is affected by strain gauge dimensions, such as thickness. Therefore adjusting the thickness or material of a strain gauge to meet a creep amount would involve routine skill in the art and be obvious).” Sato does not teach that the strain gauge is installed on a Roberval-type strain generator.
Sato ‘965 teaches “configured to be installed on a Roberval-type strain generator (Abstract), installed on the Roberval-type strain generator (Abstract).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Sato ‘965 with Sato. Strain gauges of particular characteristics are known in the art and can be installed in various locations for various purposes. It is known that Roberval-type strain generators utilize strain gauges, therefore having a strain gauge installed on that device would be obvious since the strain gauge can aid in optimizing the performance of the Roberval-type strain generator.
As to claim 2, Sato teaches “wherein the film thickness of the resistor is made to be greater than or equal to 6 nm and less than or equal to 100 nm excluding a case of the film thickness of the resistor being greater than or equal to 50 nm, so as to have the creep amount and the creep recovery amount of less than or equal to ±0.0735% ([0027]; this claim limitation pertain to the characteristics of the resistor, and the resistor and its description in the prior art meet the claimed thickness limitations. Since these limitations are met, the resistor in Sato would also have the same creep amount since it is known that creep is affected by strain gauge dimensions, such as thickness. Therefore adjusting the thickness or material of a strain gauge to meet a creep amount would involve routine skill in the art and be obvious).”
As to claim 3, Sato teaches “wherein the film thickness of the resistor is made to be greater than or equal to 6 nm and less than or equal to 50 nm, so as to have a strain limit of greater than or equal to 10,000 ue ([0027]; this claim limitations pertain to the characteristics of the resistor, which meet the claimed thickness limitations. Since these limitations are met, the resistor in Sato would also have the same creep amount since it is known that creep is affected by strain gauge dimensions, such as thickness. Therefore adjusting the thickness or material of a strain gauge to meet a creep amount would involve routine skill in the art and be obvious).”
As to claim 4, Sato teaches “wherein the film thickness of the resistor is made to be greater than or equal to 11 nm and less than or equal to 50 nm, so as to have the creep amount and the creep recovery amount of less than or equal to ±0.0368% ([0027]; this claim limitations pertain to the characteristics of the resistor, which meet the claimed thickness limitations. Since these limitations are met, the resistor in Sato would also have the same creep amount since it is known that creep is affected by strain gauge dimensions, such as thickness. Therefore adjusting the thickness or material of a strain gauge to meet a creep amount would involve routine skill in the art and be obvious).”
As to claim 5, Sato teaches “wherein a gauge factor is greater than or equal to 10 ([0028]).”
As to claim 6, Sato teaches “wherein a percentage of CrN and Cr2N contained in the resistor is less than or equal to 20% by weight ([0028]. Altering the amount or type of a material in a known element involves routine skill in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).”
As to claim 7, Sato teaches “wherein a percentage of Cr2N in CrN and Cr2N is greater than or equal to 80% by weight and less than 90% by weight ([0028]. Altering the amount or type of a material in a known element involves routine skill in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).”
As to claim 8, Sato teaches “the strain gauge according to claim 1 (Abstract teaches a strain gauge).”
Sato ‘965 teaches “A load cell comprising: a strain generator of a Roberval type, installed on the strain generator (Abstract).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Sato ‘965 with Sato. Strain gauges of particular characteristics are known in the art and can be installed in various locations for various purposes. It is known that Roberval-type strain generators utilize strain gauges, therefore having a strain gauge installed on that device would be obvious since the strain gauge can aid in optimizing the performance of the Roberval-type strain generator.
As to claim 9, Sato teaches “the resistor (Element 30 is a resistor within the strain gauge).” Sato does not teach multiple resistors within a single strain gauge.
Sato ‘965 teaches “a plurality of resistors (Figure 1, 20 depicts multiple strain gauges).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Sato ‘965 with Sato. Since Sato ‘965 teaches multiple strain gauges in the Roberval-type load cell, each strain gauge, according to Sato, would have a resistor. Therefore the combination would result in multiple resistors within the load cell. This aids in the performance of the load cell.
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 TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/TARUN SINHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights