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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The instant filed specification fails to employ or state the limitation of instant dependent claim 9, being “at least one first structure” or the limitation of instant dependent claim 17, being “second point of the substrate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 “at least one first structure” and the “second point of the substrate” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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 1-20 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. Instant independent claim 1 recites the limitation “meander-shaped” in regards to first and second conductor tracks on a substrate. The term “meander” is never clearly defined within the instant filed specification, rendering the claim indefinite. The word “meander” has numerous meanings, such as, but not limited to: follow a winding course or path; wander at random without a fixed direction; a route not straight or direct; path with many curves. As such, it is unclear as to any standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of the limitation “meander-shaped,” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention, further rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected due to their dependency.
Instant dependent claims 2 and 18 recite the limitations: “wherein the curve is arranged on an outgoing path, from an origin, without interruption and at least in sections along a first circular line and is arranged on a returning path, to the origin, at least in sections along a second circular line.” However, based on the instant filed specification pages 11 and 12, and instant filed Fig. 4, the “origin” is defined as point “B” from which the curve extends on an outgoing path, and returning path ends at point “E,” which is not the origin point “B.” In addition, the instant filed specification does not employ “outgoing path” or “returning path” in regards to the “origin” point “B,” and, as such, it is unclear as to exactly is being recited and/or limited in instant dependent claim 2. As such, it is unclear as to exactly what is being recited in instant dependent claim 2, rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 3, 19 and 20 are similarly rejected due to their dependency.
Instant dependent claims 16 and 17 recite the limitations: “wherein each of the structures have a plurality of sections in which the conductor tracks are straight or curved in parallel,” and “wherein each of the structures have a plurality of sections in which the conductor tracks are curved in parallel with a radius of curvature that varies depending on distance from an axis that extends through a second point of the substrate and about which the substrate is rotatable.” These limitations only appear in the instant filed specification in the Background/Summary section, and do not appear within the Detailed Description, and as such, these limitations are not clearly defined or described, especially in regards to the instant filed drawings. As such, it is unclear as to what exactly is being limited in instant dependent claims 16 and 17 in regards to the recited structural elements relative to one another, rendering the claims indefinite.
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.
As best understood, claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2004/0079174 to Horiuchi. Horiuchi discloses a sensor device (10) for torque measurement (see entire reference) including a substrate (13); a first and second conductor tracks (see Figs. 4A-13) arranged on the substrate and including meander-shaped structures that are connected to each other via connection sections; wherein the sensor device is adapted to determine a torque load of the substrate and wherein the structures of the first conductor track and the structures are arranged alternatingly along a curve (as recited in instant dependent claim 1); wherein the substrate is rotatable about an axis that extends through a center point of the substrate and/or is warpable in a circumferential direction of the substrate (as recited in instant dependent claim 4); wherein the structures of the first conductor track and of the second conductor track are arranged symmetrically about each other (see Figs.5B, 7A, 10A, 12A) (as recited in instant dependent claim 5); wherein the second conductor track encloses the first conductor track (see Fig. 4B) (as recited in instant dependent claim 7); wherein the first and second conductor tracks are inherently additive structures on the substrate (see para 0051) (as recited in instant dependent claim 8); wherein the substrate includes at least one first structure (15) (see Fig. 1B) adapted to introduce the torque load and at least one second structure to release the torque load (as recited in instant dependent claim 9); wherein the substrate includes a bore (see Fig. 1B, 15A and 15B) and evenly and/or unevenly distributed teeth/prong/tines adapted to introduce or release the torque load (see paras 0004-0006) (as recited in instant dependent claim 10); wherein the sensor device is adapted to determine the torque load by determining a resistance of the first conductor track and/or the second conductor track (see paras 0042 and claims 1 and 3) (as recited in instant dependent claim 11); wherein the wherein the first and second conductor tracks include an identical number of structures connected according to a bridge circuit (see Figs. 7A and 10A) (as recited in instant dependent claim 12); wherein each of the structures have a plurality of sections in which the conductor tracks are straight or curved in parallel (see aforementioned Figures) (as recited in instant dependent claim 16).
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.
As best understood, claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2004/0079174 to Horiuchi as applied to claim 1 above. Horiuchi discloses a sensor device having all of the elements stated previously. Horiuchi does not explicitly disclose the first and second conductor tracks are arranged in an X-shaped or diamond-shaped formation. However, Horiuchi does not place any limitations on the formation shape (i.e. patterns) the first and second conductor tracks, and clearly have angled portions, and must have “prescribed shapes” (see para 0019) and that other formations and/or patterns are possible to detect/measure strain due to torque in desired directions, since the formations and/or patterns determine strain sensitivity in different directions as well as for temperature compensation (see paras 0047-0061). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to employ an X-shaped or diamond-shaped, or any other desired shape formation/pattern of the first and second conductor tracks based on desired strain sensitivity directions and/or temperature compensation. In addition, the instant filed specification fails to state any criticality to the recited formations and/or patterns of the first and second conductor tracks, that the recited shaped tracks solve a particular engineering problem, or serve a particular engineering purpose in regards to the sensor device.
As best understood, claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2004/0079174 to Horiuchi as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of WO 2021/052651 to Auer et al. (see entire attached English translation and reference). Horiuchi discloses a sensor device having all of the elements stated previously. Horiuchi does not explicitly disclose at least one electronic component arranged on the substrate and adapted to process signals generated by the first conductor track and/or the second conductor track, as recited in instant dependent claim 13. Auer et al. disclose a sensor device for torque and angular positions (see entire reference) including a substrate (2.11) with a sensor arrangement (2.12) and conductive track structures (2.121, 2.122, 2.123, 2.124) and an electronic component (2.14) arranged on the substrate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to include an electronic component on the substrate to process the signals from the first and second conductive tracks to provide suitable electrical voltage or current as well as process the signals or resistance values, since auxiliary energy is absolutely necessary, thus meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 13.
As best understood, claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2004/0079174 to Horiuchi as applied to claim 1 above. Horiuchi discloses a sensor device having all of the elements stated previously. Horiuchi further discloses that the conductor tracks are formed by metal deposition (see para 0051). Horiuchi does not explicitly disclose the substrate is also a metal, as recited in instant dependent claim 14. However, Horiuchi only limits the substrate as being formed of a “flexible” material. As such, any desired material, including a metal, which is inherently flexible to a degree, is well within the design choice of one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to employ metal substrate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, the choice of material, being metal, would be chosen based on desired overall stress and strain experienced by the substrate, which must withstand the stresses and strain, and not deform, and be flexible.
As best understood, claim(s) claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2004/0079174 to Horiuchi as applied to claim 1 above. Horiuchi discloses a sensor device having all of the elements stated previously. Horiuchi further discloses that the conductor tracks are formed by metal deposition (see para 0051). Horiuchi does not explicitly disclose the substrate and the conductor tracks are made of different metals, as recited in instant dependent claim 15. However, Horiuchi clearly discloses that the conductor tracks are made of “resistance wire,” and, as such, are a metal. Typically strain sensors are formed of conductive tracks of copper material/wire, however other types of metals and metal alloys are also used, to provide the desired resistance vs. strain to be measured. In addition, although Horiuchi does not disclose that the substrate is a different metal than that of the conductive tracks, only that it must be “flexible” to transmit the strain to the conductive tracks. As such, any different metal that exhibits the appropriate flexibility to determine/measure strain of the substrate is well within the skill set of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to employ metal substrate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Due to the presence of rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), a thorough search and consideration of the prior art regarding some claims could not be reasonably made by the Examiner, as such, any claims that not rejected under prior art is not to be considered as indicating allowable subject matter. Once the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are resolved, and search and consideration of the claimed invention will again me made regarding the prior art, and may result in a final rejection.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855