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 Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that claim(s) 1-10 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For apparatuses, the claim limitations will define structural limitations (See MPEP 2114-2115) or functional limitations properly recited (See MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo (WO 2018/016668 with English Machine Translation attached) .
Regarding claim 1, Seo teaches a cantilever assembly (a horizontal supporter 400 is cantilever supported by upright supporter 300), configured to be connected to a movement assembly (driving unit 500 ) and a platform (a molding plate 600) of a rapid prototyping device (a three-dimensional printer) to drive the platform to move under an action of the movement assembly (see Figs. 1-3; Abstract; and Pages 3 and 9-10 of English Machine Translation Attached), wherein the cantilever assembly comprises:
a cantilever body, wherein a first end of the cantilever body is configured to be connected to the platform (i.e. one end of the horizontal supporter(400) connected to a molding plate (600) through the flow part (410)) (see Figs. 1-4), and a second end of the cantilever body is configured to be connected to the movement assembly (i.e. one end of the horizontal supporter (400) connected to upright supporter 300 and driver (500)) (see Figs. 1-4; Pages 11 and 18-19 of English Machine Translation Attached); and a force sensor (700) , wherein the force sensor is arranged on the cantilever body and capable to be configured to detect a deformation of the cantilever body and generate a detection signal (i.e. a piezoresistive layer (720) detects deformation of a beam structure (710) of the force sensor (700), positioned at one end of the front flow portion (410) and produce electrical signal, which goes by wire to a controller (800)) (see Figs. 3-5; Pages 11,14-16 of English Machine Translation Attached).
Regarding claim 11, Seo teaches further teaches a rapid prototyping device (a three-dimensional printer), comprising the cantilever assembly (a horizontal supporter 400 is cantilever supported by upright supporter 300) according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1; Pages 1-4 of English Machine Translation Attached).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (WO2018/016668 - with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Nonnenmacher (US 6,431,013) and Anilkumar (US2009/0122885).
Regarding claim 2, Seo teaches the cantilever assembly as discussed in claim 1 above.
Seo further teaches the cantilever assembly further comprising a controller (800) configured to receive electrical signal form the piezoresistive layer (720) through a wire connected to the controller, wherein the controller calculates the force on the front flow part from the signal (see Figs. 2-5; ; Pages 11,14-16 of English Machine Translation Attached).
However, Seo does not teach a conversion circuit that is electrically connected to the force sensor and a main controller; and the wire between the conversion circuit and the main controller has a length at least three times a length of a wire between the conversion circuit and the force sensor.
In analogous art, Nonnenmacher teaches a strain gage or sensor with integral amplifier (10) for measuring a weight applied to the sensor; wherein the amplifier is positioned directly adjacent to strain gage resistors (30) so the signal path is short and less susceptible to noise (see column 1, lines 31-40; column 3,lines 6-35), and resistors 30 are connected to an electronic signal processing component 34 by a circuit line (32). Signal processing component can include amplifiers to amplify the signal and filters to filter the signal and an analog to digital converter to convert the signal to a digital signal (see Figs. 1-2; column 3,lines 6-40).
In analogous art, Anilkumar teaches a low noise differential charge amplifier circuit for measuring discrete charges in noisy, elevated temperature and corrosive environments (Abstract), comprises one twisted and or untwisted pair of cables (430,440) can be connected to a sensor (410) and a first charge amplifier and a second twisted and or/untwisted pair can be connected to a sensor electrical equivalent impedance circuit; wherein the length; and a degree of an electrical interference and noise in the connecting cables is a function of the length of the connecting cable (see Fig. 4; [0002],[0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by Seo in view of Nonnenmacher by adding amplifier conversion circuit adjacent to the force sensor and connecting it to the controller as such is known in the art of sensing devices/circuits arrangements given the discussion of Anilkumar above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for improving noise immunity (as recognized by column 4, lines 10-14 of Nonnenmacher).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by Seo in view of Nonnenmacher and Anilkumar with the wire between the conversion circuit and the main controller has a length at least three times a length of a wire between the conversion circuit and the force sensor since the controller is mounted away from the moving cantilever assembly and the claimed at lest three times ratio then follow from routine choice where to place the circuit. Anilkumar discloses that the interference increase with cable length, which makes the sensor side wire length a result effective variable that skilled artisan would minimize. where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (Please see MPEP 2144.05 I for further details).
Regarding claim 12, Seo in view of Nonnenmacher and Anilkumar further teaches further teaches a rapid prototyping device (a three-dimensional printer), comprising the cantilever assembly (a horizontal supporter 400 is cantilever supported by upright supporter 300) according to claim 2 (see Fig. 1; Pages 1-4 of English Machine Translation Attached).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (WO2018/016668 - with English Machine Translation attached) in view of and Jacobson (US 4,488,611).
Regarding claim 3, Seo teaches the cantilever assembly as discussed in claim 1 above.
Seo further teaches that the beam structure (710) have a predetermined hole (deformation hole) in the vicinity of the piezoresistive layer (720) in order to be easily deformed by the force transmitted through the molding plate (600) (see Figs. 3-5; Pages 13-16 of English Machine Translation Attached). However, Seo does not teach the deformation hole that runs through two sides of the cantilever body, and an extending direction of the deformation hole is perpendicular to a moving direction of the cantilever body, and is perpendicular to a direction from the first end to the second end of the cantilever body.
In analogous art, Jacobson teaches a load cell of the cantilever beam type with a large cylindrical hole (2) extending horizontally through a beam (1), and recesses around the hole form a thin tubular surface on which strain gages are mounted, wherein the beam is loaded vertically and extend horizontally between its fixed and loaded ends, so a hole extending in horizontal direction through the beam runs through both sides of the beam (see Figs. 1-2; column 1,lines 63-68 and column 2, lines 4-20), and that direction is perpendicular to the beam’s length, which corresponds to the claimed direction from the first end to the second end (see Figs.1-5 )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by Seo in view of Jacobson to configure the hole runs through two sides of the cantilever body, and an extending direction of the deformation hole is perpendicular to a moving direction of the cantilever body, and is perpendicular to a direction from the first end to the second end of the cantilever body as such is known in the art of sensing devices arrangements given the discussion of Jacobson above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is using a known configuration for its known purpose, to concentrate strain at the sensor location, would yield predictable results with the added benefit of doing so allows for concentrating bending strain in a thin section where the gauge is mounted.
Regarding claim 13, Seo in view of Jacobson teaches further teaches a rapid prototyping device (a three-dimensional printer), comprising the cantilever assembly (a horizontal supporter 400 is cantilever supported by upright supporter 300) according to claim 3 (see Fig. 1; Pages 1-4 of English Machine Translation Attached).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (WO2018/016668 - with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Jacobson (US 4,488,611) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Nagai (US 2013/0269449).
Regarding claim 4, Seo in view of Jacobson teaches the cantilever assembly as discussed in claim 3 above.
Seo does not teach wherein the deformation hole comprises a first sub-hole area, a communication area and a second sub-hole area arranged side by side in sequence in the direction from the first end to the second end of the cantilever body, and the first sub-hole area is in communication with the second sub-hole area through the communication area; a minimum distance between a hole wall of the first sub-hole area and an outer surface of the cantilever body in the moving direction of the cantilever body is less than a minimum distance between a hole wall of the communication area and the outer surface of the cantilever body in the moving direction of the cantilever body; a minimum distance between a hole wall of the second sub-hole area and the outer surface of the cantilever body in the moving direction of the cantilever body is less than a minimum distance between the hole wall of the communication area and the outer surface of the cantilever body in the moving direction of the cantilever body.
In analogous art, Nagai further teaches a load cell includes a body that has a through-window bounded a upper and lower beam sections (2,3); a groove-shape hollow portions are formed in the inner surface of each beam (see Fig. 1 and Figs. 2A-2D and Fig. 5; [0005] and [0022]), at the fastening section side (4) and at the movable section side (5); as train gauges(8) are attached to the outer surface at locations corresponding to the hollows (see Figs. 1-5;[0008], [0021-0024] and [0032]). The window and the two ends hollow form a single through-opening with three areas in sequence; an end area at the fixed side, a middle area, an end area at the movable side (see Figs. 1-5). Nagai further discloses that at each end area the beam is thinner, so the minimum distance between the opening wall and the outer surface in the moving direction is smaller than in the middle area (This corresponds to the claimed first sub-hole area, communication area, second sub-hole area, and the recited distance relationship) (see Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention shape the deformation hole of beam structure (710) of Seo in this manner. The beam (710) of Seo is connected at both ends to relatively rigid parts (410 and 420) and is loaded through the plate (see Figs. 1-4), so it bends with its greatest strain at its own ends. Seo already forms a hole near the sensing layer so that the beam deforms easily there. Nagai shows the known way to concentrate strain at the gauges locations at such beam, thin the beam wall at both ends by enlarging the opening there, and place the gauges on the outer surface opposite the thinned region and applying this known layout to the beam of Seo would increase signal at the sensor locations and yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Seo in view of in view of Jacobson and Nagai further teaches the cantilever assembly, wherein the outer surfaces of the cantilever body corresponding to the first sub-hole area and the second sub-hole area (i.e. the two end hollows corresponding to first sub-hole area and second sub-hole area as discussed in claim 4 above) are both provided with a strain gage (8) (see Fig. 1); and the strain gage (8) corresponds to the minimum distance between at least one of the first sub-hole area and the second sub-hole area and the outer surface of the cantilever body in the moving direction of the cantilever body (see Figs. 1-5 of Nagi).
Regarding claim 6, Seo in view of in view of Jacobson and Nagai further teaches the cantilever assembly, wherein an inner wall of the first sub-hole area and an inner wall of the second sub-hole area (i.e. the inner wall of the two end hollows corresponding to first sub-hole area and second sub-hole area) are both arc-shaped inner walls (see Figs. 1-5 of Nagi).
Regarding claim 14-16, Seo in view of in view of Jacobson and Nagai further teaches further teaches a rapid prototyping device (a three-dimensional printer), comprising the cantilever assembly (a horizontal supporter 400 is cantilever supported by upright supporter 300) (see Fig. 1; Pages 1-4 of English Machine Translation Attached).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (WO2018/016668 - with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Jacobson (US 4,488,611) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Nagai (US 2013/0269449).
Regarding claim 7, Seo in view of Jacobson teaches the cantilever assembly as discussed in claim 3 above.
Seo in view of Jacobson does not teach wherein the force sensor comprises a strain gage, the strain gage is arranged at an outer surface of the cantilever body corresponding to the deformation hole, the strain gage is arranged on at least one side of the cantilever body in the moving direction.
In analogous art, Nagai teaches a load cell includes load cell body (6) including an upper beam section (2), a lower beam section (3), a strain gauges (8) are attached to an outer peripheral surface of the upper beam section (2) at locations corresponding to the hollow portions and corresponding to the opening, and on both sides of the beam in the direction of loading (see Fig. 1;[0022-0023] and [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the force sensor as a strain gage bonded to the outer surface of the beam over the hole as taught by Nagai since a piezoresistive layer and a bonded strain gage are both known strain sensing elements. Substituting one for the other, or using the bonded gage at the location that Seo already identifies, would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Seo in view of Jacobson teaches the cantilever assembly as discussed in claim 3 above.
Seo in view of Jacobson does not teach wherein the deformation hole is provided with a first protrusion and a second protrusion respectively on inner walls opposite to the first end and the second end of the cantilever body.
In analogous art, Nagai teaches a load cell includes load cell body (6) including an upper beam section (2), a lower beam section (3), stoppers that project inward from opposing parts of the load cell with a small gap between them, wherein the stoppers configured to protect a strain gauge beam from excess load and when the beam deforms the stoppers contact each other and prevent further displacement, protecting the gauges (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5; [0005-0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by Seo and Jacobson in view of Nagai by the deformation hole is provided with a first protrusion and a second protrusion respectively on inner walls opposite to the first end and the second end of the cantilever body as such is known in the art of sensing devices arrangements given the discussion of Nagai above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for an excess load preventing mechanism for preventing damages to the load cell which would be caused by an excess load (as recognized by [0005] of Nagai).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (WO2018/016668 - with English Machine Translation attached), Nonnenmacher (US 6,431,013) and Anilkumar (US 2009/0122885) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hopkins (US 2004/0060372) and Reichow (US 4,666,003).
Regarding claim 9, Seo in view of Nonnenmacher and Anilkumar teaches the cantilever assembly as discussed in claim 2 above.
Seo further teaches a cantilever base (a rear fixing part 420), wherein the cantilever base is configured to be connected to the movement assembly (500), the cantilever body is connected to the cantilever base (420) (see Figs. 1-4; Pages 11 and 18-19 of English Machine Translation Attached)
Seo in view of Nonnenmacher and Anilkumar does not teach the cantilever base comprises a receiving cavity, the conversion circuit is located in the receiving cavity, the cantilever body is provided with a wire entry hole, the wire entry hole is in connection with the receiving cavity, and the conversion circuit is electrically connected to the force sensor by means of the wire entry hole.
In analogous art, Hopkins teaches a load cell that includes two beam elements and a strain gage arranged on a narrow sensing section of a beam element (Abstract), an electronics cavity (17) is provided in the dead end (4), wherein the cavity houses electronic circuitry, such as a weight bridge circuit, that receives and processes signals from the strain gages (see Fig. 3; [0035]). Wirring tunnels in the load cell body carry wires from the strain gages (9) into the electronic cavity, and cables connected to the cavity carries the output signals (see Fig. 3; [0036-0037]).
In analogous art, Reichow a load cell for on-board weighing applications, including an elongated sheer force measuring beam (24) which includes mounting means (52,54,56) for securing the opposing longitudinal ends of the beam (24); holes (26—26) in the vicinity of each end of the beam to house the strain gauges for the load cell (see figs. 2-5; column 2,lines 20-40), wherein the strain gauge leads internally through an opening (wire entry hole) in the beam to a cavity that hold the bridge circuit, with an output connector on the cavity (see Figs. 2-4; column 3, lines 3-30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly as taught by Seo and Jacobson in view of Hopkins and Reichow with a receiving cavity, the conversion circuit is located in the receiving cavity, the cantilever body is provided with a wire entry hole, the wire entry hole is in connection with the receiving cavity, and the conversion circuit is electrically connected to the force sensor by means of the wire entry hole as such is known in the art of sensing devices arrangements given the discussion of Nagai above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for protecting the electronics and leads from the environment and from movement, and keep the sensor-side wire short.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the primary reason why it is deemed novel and non- obvious over the prior art of record to have the cantilever assembly as instantly claimed is that the prior arts Seo (WO2018/016668), which is/are regarded as being the prior arts closest to subject- matter of the claim 10, alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the cantilever assembly according to claim 9, further comprising: a wire placement plate, wherein the wire placement plate is connected to the cantilever base, and an end of the wire placement plate extends in a direction away from the cantilever base, wherein when the cantilever assembly is connected to the movement assembly, the end of the wire placement plate is located in a recess of the movement assembly; the wire placement plate is provided with a wiring groove, the cantilever base is provided with a wire exit hole, a first end of the wiring groove is connected to the receiving cavity through the wire exit hole, and a second end of the wiring groove extends to the end of the wire placement plate; the wire between the conversion circuit and the main controller of the rapid prototyping device is routed through the wiring groove; the wire between the conversion circuit and the main controller comprises a spring cable, a first part of the spring cable is fixedly connected to the wire placement plate, and a second part of the spring cable is fixedly connected to the cantilever base.
Therefore, claim 10 is deemed novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights