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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 13-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shih et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0123548).
Regarding claim 1, Shih discloses (Figs. 1-10) a strain measuring system (see the Abstract and pars. [0009]-[0014]), comprising:
a piezoelectric element 102 [0039] and a resistor 104 [0039] provided on an object 110 ;
a resistance detection circuit 500 configured to detect a change in resistance of the resistor [0043];
a piezoelectric effect detection circuit 600 configured to detect a piezoelectric effect of the piezoelectric element [0044]; and
a strain calculation circuit 1000 [0057] configured to:
detect a strain changing time (i.e. a time when a user presses a switch, for example: [0011]-[0012]) while the strain of the object is changing using a detection result from the piezoelectric effect detection circuit 600 (see pars. [0011] and [0044]),
calculate an amount of change in resistance of the resistor 104 (i.e. force measurement using the resistors 104, which corresponds to the signal produced, i.e. the amount of change of the resistance: see pars. [0011] and [0043]) during the strain changing time (see pars. [0011] and [0043]), and
calculate a degree of strain of the object (stress over time: [0011], long term stress changes: [0043]) using a calculation result of the amount of change in the resistance (see pars. [0011], [0043]-[0044] and [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Shih discloses (Figs. 1-10) the resistor 104, the piezoelectric element 102, and the object 110 are at least partially overlapped with each other along a predetermined direction (i.e. vertically: see Figs. 1A/B).
Regarding claim 8, Shih discloses (Figs. 1-10) the resistor 104 and the piezoelectric element 102 are disposed on different planes (as shown in Figs. 1A/B).
Regarding claim 13, Shih discloses (Figs. 1-10) a longitudinal direction of the resistor 104 and a longitudinal direction of the piezoelectric element 102 align with a longitudinal direction of the object 110 (i.e. left-right in Figs. 1A/B).
Regarding claim 14, Shih discloses (Figs. 1-10) a central axis of the resistor 104 along the longitudinal direction of the resistor 104, a central axis of the piezoelectric element 102 along the longitudinal direction of the piezoelectric element 102, and a central axis of the object 110 along the longitudinal direction of the object overlap (i.e. vertically: see Figs. 1A/B).
Regarding claim 17, Shih discloses (Figs. 1-10) the resistor 104 includes at least one of Ni and Cr (i.e. 104 can be nickel-chromium: [0039]).
Regarding claim 18, Shih discloses (Figs. 1-10) the piezoelectric element includes zinc oxide [0039].
Regarding claim 19, Shih discloses (Figs. 1-10) the resistor 104 is formed of at least one of a Ni-Cr based alloy [0039].
Regarding claim 20, Shih discloses (Figs. 1-10) the resistor 104 is disposed on the object as a thin film [0039].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08-19-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies, i.e., “the degree of strain is calculated from the amount of the change in the resistance (R2 – R1 in the embodiment)” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Secondly, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. To address the amendments dated 08-19-2026, Shih discloses detecting a strain changing time (i.e. a time when a user presses a switch, for example: [0011]-[0012]) while the strain of the object is changing using a detection result from the piezoelectric effect detection circuit 600 (see pars. [0011] and [0044]), calculating an amount of change in resistance of the resistor 104 (i.e. force measurement using the resistors 104, which corresponds to the signal produced, i.e. the amount of change of the resistance: see pars. [0011] and [0043]) during the strain changing time (see pars. [0011] and [0043]), and calculating a degree of strain of the object (stress over time: [0011], long term stress changes: [0043]) using a calculation result of the amount of change in the resistance (see pars. [0011], [0043]-[0044] and [0057]).
Therefore, for at least the reasons given above, the previous grounds of rejection is maintained.
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 Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights