DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-10 remain pending.
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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 1, the term “the base sensitivity of a tested sensor” lacks antecedent basis.
(b) Regarding Claim 1, the term “the middle portion of the strain beam” lacks antecedent basis.
(c) Regarding Claim 1, the term “the position of the mounting structure” lacks antecedent basis.
(d) Regarding Claim 1, the term “the direction of the sinusoidal excitation” lacks antecedent basis.
(e) Regarding Claim 3, the term “the central axis of the mounting hole site” lacks antecedent basis.
(f) Regarding Claim 4, the term “the top surface of the fixed rod” lacks antecedent basis.
(g) Regarding Claim 5, the term “the minimum diameter of the first conical portion” lacks antecedent basis.
(h) Regarding Claim 5, the term “the inner diameter of the first positioning groove” lacks antecedent basis.
(i) Regarding Claim 7, the term “the top surface of the first vertical section” lacks antecedent basis.
(j) Regarding Claim 7, the term “the same horizontal plane” lacks antecedent basis.
(k) Regarding Claim 7, the term “the bottom of the strain beam” lacks antecedent basis.
(l) Regarding Claim 8, the term “the groove face of the groove” lacks antecedent basis.
(m) Regarding Claim 9, the term “the side, away from the first vertical section” lacks antecedent basis.
(n) Regarding Claim 10, the term “the two sides of the displacement zero points” lacks antecedent basis.
(o) Regarding Claim 10, the term “the time through feedback control” lacks antecedent basis.
(p) Regarding Claim 10, the term “the moving process” lacks antecedent basis.
(q) Regarding Claim 10, the term “the magnitude and frequency of the sinusoidal excitation output” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleich DE102019001241B4 (hereinafter, Gleich), in view of McDearmon et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2009/0266138A1 (hereinafter, McDearmon).
Regarding Claim 1, Gleich describes a base strain generating device for detecting the base sensitivity of a tested sensor (a base strain generating device for detecting a base sensitivity of a sensor, Gleich, Paragraphs 0033-0037 and Figure 1), comprising:
-a base (base (1), Gleich, Figure 1),
…
-a clamping assembly, the clamping assembly being fixedly connected to the base and being used for clamping the middle portion of the strain beam so as to fix the position of the mounting structure (clamping assembly connected to the base for clamping the middle portion of the strain beam, Gleich, Paragraphs 0009, 0016, and Figures 1 and 2);
-two sets of magnetic circuit devices, the two sets of magnetic circuit devices being fixedly connected to the base respectively, wherein two ends of the strain beam are provided with one set of magnetic circuit devices respectively; the magnetic circuit devices are used for providing sinusoidal excitation for the end portions of the strain beam so as to enable the two ends of the strain beam to swing in a reciprocating manner, and the direction of the sinusoidal excitation is parallel to the direction of a sensitive axis of the tested sensor (electromagnets connected to the base, provided to cause a sinusoidal excitation of the tested area, Gleich, Paragraphs 0052-0056 and 0008 and Figures 1, 3, and 4).
Gleich does not specifically disclose the device to include a strain beam, the middle portion of the strain beam being provided with a mounting structure for fixedly mounting the tested sensor.
McDearmon discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). McDearmon describes a strain beam (28) wherein the middle portion of the strain beam being provided with a mounting structure for mounting a test sensor (64) (McDearmon, Paragraphs 0023 and 0028 and Figures 2A and 2B).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Gleich to include a strain beam, the middle portion of the strain beam being provided with a mounting structure for fixedly mounting the tested sensor, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by McDearmon.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because placing a sensor on a strain beam allows for calibration of the sensor(s) (McDearmon, Paragraphs 0028-0029 and 0002-0007).
Regarding Claim 2, Gleich, as modified, describes the base strain generating device according to claim 1, wherein the clamping assembly and the middle portion of a strain beam are clamped with each other in a line contact mode (clamping assembly and middle portion of the strain beam clamped together in a line contact mode, Gleich, Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Gleich, as modified, describes the base strain generating device according to claim 2, wherein the mounting structure is arranged to be a mounting hole site, the mounting hole site penetrates through the strain beam (mounting hole site penetrates beam, Gleich, Figure 4), and the central axis of the mounting hole site is parallel to the direction of sinusoidal excitation (central axis mounting site is parallel to sinusoidal excitation, Gleich, Figure 4); …
Gleich does not specifically disclose the device to include a tested sensor is fixedly mounted in the mounting hole site, the sensitive axis of the tested sensor coincides with the central axis of the mounting hole site.
McDearmon discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). McDearmon describes a strain beam (28) wherein the middle portion of the strain beam being provided with a mounting structure for mounting a test sensor (64) (McDearmon, Paragraphs 0023 and 0028 and Figures 2A and 2B).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Gleich to include a tested sensor is fixedly mounted in the mounting hole site, the sensitive axis of the tested sensor coincides with the central axis of the mounting hole site, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by McDearmon.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because placing a sensor on a strain beam allows for calibration of the sensor(s) (McDearmon, Paragraphs 0028-0029 and 0002-0007).
Regarding Claim 4, Gleich, as modified, describes the base strain generating device according to claim 3, wherein the clamping assembly comprises: a frame (frame, Gleich, Figure 2), comprising a bottom plate (bottom plate, Gleich, Figure 2) and an overhanging arm (arm (5), Gleich, Figure 2), the bottom plate being fixedly connected to a base (bottom plate connected to a base, Gleich, Figure 2); a fixed rod, which is fixedly arranged on the bottom plate, the top surface of the fixed rod being opposite to the bottom surface of the strain beam (rod (e.g., 3 or 6), Gleich, Figure 2) and a gap being formed between the top surface of the fixed rod and the bottom surface of the strain beam (gap between rod and bottom surface, Gleich, Figure 2); a movable screw, which is connected to the overhanging arm via a bolt (bolt (e.g., 16), Gleich, Figure 2), the mounting direction of the movable screw coinciding with the central axis of the fixed rod and being perpendicular to and intersecting with the central axis of the mounting hole site (movable screw coinciding with the central axis and perpendicular to the mounting hole site, Gleich, Figure 2); the bottom surface of the movable screw being opposite to the top surface of the strain beam (a bottom surface of a movable screw being opposite the top surface of the strain beam, Gleich, Figure 2), and a gap being formed between the bottom surface of the movable screw and the top surface of the strain beam (gap between the beam and screw, Gleich, Figure 2); and when the movable screw is rotated, the movable screw and the fixed rod approach each other so that the strain beam can be clamped between the movable screw and the fixed rod (strain beam can be clamped between the screw and rod, Gleich, Figure 2).
Regarding Claims 5-9, the claims are simply describing a structure of the strain generating device which is either taught or suggested individually by Gleich (e.g., See Figures 1, 2, and 4), McDearmon (e.g., Figures 1-6), or a combination of said references.
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667