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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the sensor carrier is connected to the first inner surface of the flexible membrane” (claim 1), and the “the sensor carrier is connected to the flexible membrane” (claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawings only show the claimed, “sensor carrier” (ref. # 39) connected to the “base” (ref. # 17), via ref. # 57 shown in Figure 6, or connected to the “side wall” (ref. # 21), via “connecting part” (ref. # 45). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 7, the claimed, “the load receiving end” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The claim should be amended to recite, –the first load receiving end–, for consistency throughout the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, in line 15, the claimed, “the inner wall” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Even further regarding claim 1, the claim should be amended to end in a “.”.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed, “the third sensor part” and “the fourth sensor part” lack antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed, “the sensor carrier part” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The claim should be amended to recite, –the sensor carrier–, for consistency throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 6–9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakano et al. (US Pub. # 2012/0180575), hereinafter referred to as Sakano.
Regarding claim 1, Sakano teaches, “A load cell (Fig. 1; abstract) having a first load receiving end and a second opposing end, and having a central axis extending from the first load receiving end to the second opposing end (upper and lower end of load cell in z-direction), the load cell comprising:- a first load receiving end comprising a flexible membrane that is adapted to yield upon application of a load to the membrane, the flexible membrane having a first inner surface and a first outer surface (Fig. 1, ref. # 12, 14), - a second opposing end comprising a base providing a counterforce to the load receiving end and/or the flexible membrane (ref. # 24), - at least one rigid side wall extending from the flexible membrane to the base, the side wall having a second inner surface and a second outer surface (ref. # 10), - a first inner volume defined by the first inner surface and the second inner surface (area between 10, 12, and 20), - a sensor carrier being arranged at a predefined distance from the flexible membrane and having a first sensor surface facing the first inner surface of the flexible membrane, where the sensor carrier is connected to the first inner surface of the flexible membrane and/or to the second inner surface of the inner wall (ref. # 20), - a first sensor part arranged on the first inner surface of the flexible membrane (ref. # 18), - a second sensor part arranged on the first sensor surface of the sensor carrier (ref. # 22), - where in an unloaded condition the first sensor part is arranged at a first distance from the second sensor part, and in a loaded condition the first sensor part is arranged at a second distance from the second sensor part, where the first distance is different from the second distance (see load state in Fig. 1 vs Fig. 5),”
Regarding claim 3, Sakano teaches, “wherein the first sensor part and the second sensor part are arranged in a central position of the load cell (Fig. 1, ref. # 14, 18, 22).”
Regarding claim 4, Sakano teaches, “wherein the sensor carrier is connected to the base (Fig. 1, ref. # 10, 20).”
Regarding claim 6, Sakano teaches, “wherein the flexible membrane has an annular shape and is attached to a first end of the first side wall, and/or wherein the flexible membrane comprises a load application part arranged in a central area of second outer surface of the flexible membrane (Fig. 1–2, ref. # 10, 12, 14, 16).”
Regarding claim 7, Sakano teaches, “wherein the first sensor part, the second sensor part, the third sensor part and/or the fourth sensor part have an annular, circular, round and/or cylindric shape (Fig. 1, 2).”
Regarding claim 8, Sakano teaches, “wherein the sensor carrier part is arranged to be stationary relative to the side wall and/or the base, and/or relative to the flexible membrane (Fig. 1, 5; ref. # 10, 22).”
Regarding claim 9, Sakano teaches, “wherein the load cell is a capacitive load cell and/or the first sensor part, the second sensor part, or any subsequent sensor parts are capacitive sensors (abstract).”
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano (US Pub. # 2012/0180575) in view of Okada et al. (US Pub. # 2019/0113407), hereinafter referred to as Okada.
Regarding claim 2, Sakano does not appear to teach, “wherein the load cell further comprises a third sensor part arranged on the first inner surface of the flexible membrane, and a fourth sensor part arranged on the first sensor surface of the sensor carrier.” However, Okada teaches the deficiencies of Sakano (Fig. 1, ref. # C1 and C2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakano’s invention to include wherein the load cell further comprises a third sensor part arranged on the first inner surface of the flexible membrane, and a fourth sensor part arranged on the first sensor surface of the sensor carrier.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sakano’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring a most accurate detection of force along the surface of the sensor.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano (US Pub. # 2012/0180575) in view of Okada (US Pat. # 5856620), hereinafter referred to as Okada ‘620’.
Regarding claim 5, Sakano does not appear to teach, “wherein the sensor carrier is connected to the base and/or the flexible membrane and/or the side wall via at least one connecting part.” However, Okada ‘620’ teaches the deficiencies of Sakano (Fig. 2, ref. # 30). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sakano’s invention to include wherein the sensor carrier is connected to the base and/or the flexible membrane and/or the side wall via at least one connecting part.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sakano’s invention for at least the purpose of elastically supporting the outside edges of the sensor carrier, ensuring more accurate detection results with decreased variance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach load cell sensing devices with configurations similar to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852