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 Objections
Claims 1, 7-8, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 8, “another vibrator “should be changed to --another one of the plurality of vibrators--.
Regarding claim 7, line 2, “a vibrator designed as a vibrating tab” should be changed to --the vibrator designed as a vibrating tab--.
Regarding claim 8, line 2, “a counter-tab” should be changed to --the counter-vibrating tab--.
Regarding claim 8, lines 2-3, “counter-tab vibrates” should be changed to --counter-vibrating tab vibrates--.
Regarding claim 8, line 4, “as the tab” should be changed to --as the vibrating tab--.
Regarding claim 17, line 9, “the exciter assembly” should be changed to --an exciter assembly-- and “an exciter assembly” should be changed to --the exciter assembly--.
Regarding claim 18, it appears as though it should be dependent on claim 17 instead of claim 16 due to the reference to “the transmission amplitude”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4 and 9-13 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the claim states the limitation “and is free of these”. It is unclear as to what “these” are referring to. For the purposes of further examination, the claim limitation is being interpreted as wherein at least the middle one can be subjected to tension and is free of any exciter element or detector element.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, they are dependent on claim 3.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "at least one of the provided vibration exciters or collectors" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to what is being referred to when the claim refers to “collectors”, as the specification does not mention the term “collector” outside of claim 9. It is unclear as to whether or not this is referring to a vibration detector or to something else entirely. For the purposes of further examination, the claim is being interpreted as stating --at least one of the provided vibration exciters or vibration detectors--.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. There are two mentions of the term “preferably” present in claim 10. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "being especially preferred" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “free of any other element for any purpose”. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of this limitation. Is this limitation inferring that the resonance vibrator consists of a certain singular material free of any other element, or is it referring to the resonance vibrator not having any additional elements on its surface, or something else entirely? For the purposes of further examination, the claim is being interpreted as wherein the resonance vibrator does not have any additional elements on its surface.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikeyama et al. (WO 2015/033522 A1) (hereinafter Ikeyama).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeyama teaches a vibrating bridge for a vibrating-wire sensor [strain sensor 61] with clamping points located opposite to one another for connecting the vibrating bridge to the vibrating-wire sensor [supported at both ends by fixed portion 53] and to a plurality of vibrators provided between the clamping points [vibrating beam 34, first arm 66, second arm 68] (Para [0022, 0027], see Figs. 5A-5C), one of which is designed as a resonance vibrator mechanically connected to the clamping points, wherein the resonance vibrator is subject to tension or pressure during operation via the clamping points [both the first arm 66 and the second arm 68 extend and contract in the longitudinal direction of the vibrating beam 34 like the vibrating beam 34] (Para [0027-0028], see Figs. 5A-5C), characterized in that the resonance vibrator is free of a vibration exciter or a vibration detector [first arm 66, second arm 68 free of a vibration exciter or vibration detector] (see Figs. 5A and 5C), and another one of the plurality of vibrators is provided with a vibration exciter [vibrating beam 34 with drive unit 40] (see Figs. 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 2, Ikeyama as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the vibration exciter can be operated as a vibration detector [driving unit 40 and detection unit 41 comprising same construction and materials of lower electrode, piezoelectric layer, and upper electrode, and thus driving unit 40 is capable of being operated as a detector] (Para [0012-0013]).
As best understood regarding claim 9, Ikeyama as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein at least one of the provided vibration exciters or vibration detectors is designed as piezoceramics [lead zirconate titanate] (Para [0012-0013]).
As best understood regarding claim 10, Ikeyama as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein at least one of the vibrators consist of a material different from a piezoelectric material [silicon] (Para [0027]).
As best understood regarding claim 11, Ikeyama as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein at least one of the vibrators is designed as an elongated rod [vibrating beam 34, first arm 66, second arm 68] (see Figs. 5A-5C).
As best understood regarding claim 13, Ikeyama as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the resonance vibrator is furthermore free of any other element for any purpose [see first arm 66 or second arm 68] (see Figs. 5A-5C)
Regarding claim 14, Ikeyama teaches a vibrating-wire sensor with a vibrating bridge according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above), wherein this comprises an exciter assembly for the vibration exciter provided with an input for a frequency signal of the vibration detector, and then exciter assembly is designed to output a frequency corresponding to the frequency signal as an excitation frequency to the vibration exciter [when a voltage is applied to driving unit 40 and the vibrating beam 34 vibrates, an AC signal corresponding to the natural frequency of the vibrating beam 34 is input to a processing circuit connected to the detecting unit 41. AC signal fed back to the driving section to maintain the string vibration at a frequency equal to the natural frequency] (Para [0013]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amand et al. (US 5,574,220 (hereinafter Amand).
Regarding claims 5 and 7-8, Ikeyama as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the vibrator provided with the vibration exciter is designed as a vibrating tab, wherein the vibrator designed as a vibrating tab is located opposite to a counter-vibrating tab provided with a weight which has such as mass that the counter-vibrating tab vibrates during operation of the vibrating bridge with essentially the same phase as the vibrating tab to which it is assigned. Amand teaches a vibrating bridge comprising a vibrator provided with a vibration exciter and detector designed as a vibrating tab located opposite a counter-vibrating tab that has a mass such that the counter vibrating tab vibrates with essentially the same phase as the vibrating tab opposite it [tabs 30 and 32 separated by a gap; means for setting the beams into vibration; means for measuring the frequency] (Col 1, lines 7-17, Col 3, lines 30-57, see Abstract, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ikeyama with Amand such that the vibrator provided with the vibration exciter is designed as a vibrating tab, wherein the vibrator designed as a vibrating tab is located opposite to a counter-vibrating tab provided with a weight which has such as mass that the counter-vibrating tab vibrates during operation of the vibrating bridge with essentially the same phase as the vibrating tab to which it is assigned, in order to minimize variations in resonant frequency caused by application of interfering forces.
Regarding claim 6, Ikeyama as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein a further vibrator designed as a vibrating tab is provided, which comprises a vibration detector. Amand teaches a vibrating bridge comprising a vibrator provided with a vibration detector designed as a vibrating [tabs 30 and 32 separated by a gap; means for measuring the frequency] (Col 1, lines 7-17, Col 3, lines 30-57, see Abstract, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ikeyama with Amand such that wherein a further vibrator designed as a vibrating tab is provided, which comprises a vibration detector, in order to minimize variations in resonant frequency caused by application of interfering forces.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ando et al. (US 2006/0207341 A1) (hereinafter Ando).
Regarding claims 15-16, Ikeyama teaches a vibrating wire sensor with a vibrating bridge according to claim 1 (see Rejection of Claim 1 above), wherein this comprises an exciter assembly for the vibration-exciter element (Para [0013]). Ikeyama fails to teach wherein the exciter assembly is designed to detect a current detection signal generated by the vibration-exciter element during a phase without excitation of the vibration-exciter element, and during an excitation phase of the vibration-exciter element following the phase without excitation, to excite it by means of the exciter signal at a frequency which corresponds to the detection signal generated by it in the preceding phase without excitation. Ando teaches a load detecting device comprising a vibration exciter element which is designed to detect a current detection signal generated by the vibration exciter element during a phase without excitation of the vibration exciter element [driving period], and during an excitation phase of the vibration-exciter element following the phase without excitation, to excite it by means of the exciter signal at a frequency which corresponds to the detection signal generated by it in the preceding phase without excitation [detection period] (Para [0020-0025], see Figs. 1 and 7A-7B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ikeyama with Ando such that the exciter assembly is designed to detect a current detection signal generated by the vibration-exciter element during a phase without excitation of the vibration-exciter element, and during an excitation phase of the vibration-exciter element following the phase without excitation, to excite it by means of the exciter signal at a frequency which corresponds to the detection signal generated by it in the preceding phase without excitation, in order to provide an element that can simultaneously provide driving and detecting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 3, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding three vibrators provided parallel to each other in a plane, one of the outer ones being provided with the vibration exciter and the other with the vibration detector, and at least the middle one can be subjected to tension and is free of any exciter element or detection element, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in claim 1, from which it depends upon.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, they are dependent on claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding wherein the vibrating bridge furthermore comprises a detector vibrator with a resonance frequency fDres different from the resonance frequency fRres for the resonance vibrator, and with a resonance curve which is flatter than the resonance curve of the resonance vibrator, and the vibrating bridge is designed in such a way that the detector vibrator vibrates during operation at a vibration of the resonance vibrator at an amplitude above a transmission amplitude AA, in turn, at an amplitude above a detection amplitude AD of the exciter assembly, and the vibrating-wire sensor is provided with an exciter assembly which is designed to generate an exciter signal for a vibration exciter and process a currently detected detector signal of a vibration detector arranged on the detector vibrator, thereby not using this detector signal to determine the frequency and amplitude of the detector vibrator below the detection amplitude AD, wherein the resonance curves of the resonance vibrator and the detector vibrator overlap in the range above the higher value of the detection amplitude AD and the transmission amplitude AA, in combination with the rest of the limitations regarding the vibrating bridge according to Claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, it appears to be dependent on claim 17 (see Claim objection above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855