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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/7/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 9 is 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. The limitation “a plurality of instances of the resistor” is not described or even recited within the instant application. There is no support for this statement.
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.
Claim 9 is 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. The phrase “plurality of instances of a resistor” is not adequately described within the specification for the examiner to understand the meters and bounds of this claim language. Based on the context and figures, examiner will interpret this to mean that multiple resistors are present within a load cell.
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 contains Cr, CrN, and Cr2N over the substrate (Element 30; [0002]), wherein a film thickness of the resistor is made to be greater than or equal to 6 nm and less than or equal to 100 nm ([0027]), so as to have a creep amount and a 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).” Sato does not teach that the strain gauge is installed on a Roberval-type strain generator.
Sato ‘965 teaches “installed on a 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 instances of (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
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571)270-0349. 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 2863