CTNF 18/646,254 CTNF 89897 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 25 April 2024 is acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 28 sets forth a "means for limiting the distance between the magnetic means and a sensor to a minimum distance." However, the specification does not describe or depict any specific structure for performing this function. This claim is accordingly found to not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claim 31 sets forth a "means for digitizing, and/or processing, for example by Fourier transform, a signal sampled at the terminals of a sensor to be characterized." However, the specification does not describe any specific hardware for performing this function, nor does it describe, in any fashion, any specific algorithm or processing steps to accomplish this functionality. This claim is accordingly found to not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claim 32 sets forth a "means for digitizing and/or memorizing reply data and/or of calibration and/or hysteresis of a sensor to be characterized." However, the specification does not describe any specific hardware for performing this function, nor does it describe, in any fashion, any specific algorithm or processing steps to accomplish this functionality. This claim is accordingly found to not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 27-29, 31-32, 34, and 42 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. Claim 27 recites the limitation "the direction (XX')". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this is understood to refer to the axis of claim 23. 07-34-08 In claim 29, the phrase "for example a stepper motor" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following "for example" are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 07-34-08 In claim 31, the phrase "for example by Fourier transform" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following "for example" are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 07-34-08 In claim 34, the phrase "for example a ring" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following "for example" are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In claim 42, the phrase "for example according to a position of the sensor with respect to means that generate said magnetic field" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following "for example" are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 07-34-23 In claims 28, 31, and 32 the limitations "means for limiting the distance between the magnetic means and a sensor to a minimum distance," "means for digitizing, and/or processing, for example by Fourier transform, a signal sampled at the terminals of a sensor to be characterized," and "means for digitizing and/or memorizing reply data and/or of calibration and/or hysteresis of a sensor to be characterized" invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 33-37, 40, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by CN 110057493 to Liu et al. (hereinafter referred to as Liu; cited by applicant; new machine translation being relied upon herein) . With regards to claim 33 , Liu discloses a method (see [0011], [0026], which describes how the device of fig. 1 is operated) for characterizing a sensor (force sensor 2), the method comprising: fixedly holding said sensor (using fixed frame 1/calibration bracket 11) with respect to means for generating a magnetic field (coil 4); generating a magnetic field according to a direction enabling the application of a tension or a compression to the sensor, by direct interaction between this field and the sensor ([0011], [0026]); and measuring the response of the sensor to this tension or compression (using computer 14; [0011], [0026]). With regards to claim 34 , Liu discloses the method according to claim 33. Liu further discloses at least one of: a prior step of mounting a magnetic part on the sensor (see magnet 3 on sensor 2 in fig. 1), if the sensor is nonmagnetic; a step of mounting an accessory forming a support, for example a ring, on the sensor; a prior step of mounting a magnetic part on the accessory. With regards to claim 35 , Liu discloses the method according to claim 33. Liu further discloses further including modifying or adjusting the spacing between the means for generating a magnetic field and said sensor (the sensor 2 and magnetic means are placed into position and adjusted so as to be aligned with one another as per [0011] and [0026], this corresponds to modifying or adjusting the spacing therebetween). With regards to claim 36 , Liu discloses the method according to claim 33. Liu further discloses applying to the sensor: alternately a tensile and then compressive stress force, by reversing the direction of the magnetic field; or a tensile or compressive stress, and then no stress (stress is applied according to [0011] or [0026], and when the coil 4 is turned off, no stress is applied). With regards to claim 37 , Liu discloses the method according to claim 33. In Liu, the sensor would have at least one axis of sensitivity, and so the tension or the compression would be applied according to a 1st axis of sensitivity of the sensor. With regards to claim 40 , Liu discloses the method according to claim 33. Liu further discloses the sensor including one or more face(s), the direction of the magnetic field being perpendicular to this or these face(s) (see fig. 1; the magnetic field is generated by the coil 4, and at least because encircles coil 4, would be perpendicular to at least one face somewhere along its path). With regards to claim 42 , Liu discloses the method according to claim 33. Liu further discloses a step of memorizing response and/or calibration and/or hysteresis data of the sensor at said tension or compression (computer 14 receives and quantifies the output of subjecting force sensor 2 to the magnetic field; [0011], [0026]), for example according to a position of the sensor with respect to means that generate said magnetic field . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of US 10,962,590 to Yam et al. (hereinafter referred to as Yam) . With regards to claim 23 , Liu discloses a device (see fig. 1) for characterizing a force sensor (force sensor 2), comprising: magnetic means (coil 4) for generating a magnetic field ([0011], [0026]) according to at least one axis ([0011], [0026]); means (fixed frame 1/calibration bracket 11) for adjusting and then holding a relative position, according to the axis, between a sensor to be tested and the magnetic means ([0011], [0026]); and means (computer 14) for measuring a signal representative of a tensile or compressive force applied to the sensor directly using said magnetic means ([0011], [0026]). PNG media_image1.png 501 836 media_image1.png Greyscale However, Liu does not expressly teach the means for adjusting and holding a relative position required by the 112(f) interpretation of the claims. Yam teaches a means for adjusting and holding a relative position between a magnetic element and a target (see the stepper motors 155-165 in fig. 1B for positioning magnet 135 at a desired position with respect to water 150). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liu such that the means for adjusting and holding a relative position is a positioning and holding means using stepper motors adjustable along three axes (XYZ) like in Yam. Such means for adjusting and holding a relative position between a magnetic element and a target would merely provide one known, specific configuration for aligning the electromagnet and sensor of Liu, and nothing about the operation of the device of Liu would substantially change. The result of this combination would thus be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination accordingly amounts to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions. With regards to claim 24 , the combination of Liu and Yam teaches the device according to claim 23. This combination further teaches a fixed support for holding the sensor to be characterized (fixed frame 1) and a movable support for holding the magnetic means (XYZ stepper motors as modified in view of Yam). With regards to claim 25 , the combination of Liu and Yam teaches the device according to claim 24. This combination further teaches the movable support being driven by a 3-axis system controlled by 3 motors (see XYZ-movable stepper motors taught by Yam). With regards to claim 26 , the combination of Liu and Yam teaches the device according to claim 23. Liu further teaches the means for generating a magnetic field including an electromagnet (coil 4; [0011], [0026]). With regards to claim 27 , the combination of Liu and Yam teaches the device according to claim 23. Liu further teaches means for: at least reversing the direction of application of the magnetic field along the direction (XX′); and/or cutting off the application of the magnetic field along the axis (XX′) (see relay switch 8; [0011]). With regards to claim 28 , the combination of Liu and Yam teaches the device according to claim 23. Although not expressly stated, the different parts of the device would be placed on a surface of some sort, and this surface would function to limit the distance between the magnetic means and a sensor to a minimum distance due to surface friction. With regards to claim 29 , the combination of Liu and Yam teaches the device according to claim 23. This combination further teaches the means for adjusting and then holding a relative position, according to said axis, between a force sensor to be characterized and the magnetic means, including at least one motor, for example a stepper motor (XYZ stepper motors as modified in view of Yam). With regards to claim 30 , the combination of Liu and Yam teaches the device according to claim 23. This combination further teaches means for centering and/or holding (fixed frame 1 and the XYZ stepper motors in the applied combination) and/or measuring a relative position according to axes which are perpendicular to one another and to said axis, between the sensor to be characterized and the magnetic means. With regards to claim 31 , the combination of Liu and Yam teaches the device according to claim 23. Liu further teaches means for digitizing, and/or processing, for example by Fourier transform, a signal sampled at the terminals of a sensor to be characterized (computer 14 measures and at least digitizes signals from the force sensor 2; [0011]). With regards to claim 32 , the combination of Liu and Yam teaches the device according to claim 23. Liu further teaches means for digitizing and/or memorizing reply data and/or of calibration and/or hysteresis of a sensor to be characterized (computer 14 measures and at least digitizes reply data from the force sensor 2; [0011]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 38 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu . With regards to claim 38 , Liu teaches the method according to claim 37. Liu does not expressly teach the sensor including at least a 2nd axis of sensitivity, the method further including: a step of modifying the orientation of the sensor, and applying a tension or a compression according to this 2nd axis of sensitivity of the sensor; measuring the response of the sensor to this tension or compression according to this 2nd axis of sensitivity. Note, however, that the method of Liu is for calibrating force sensors along their axis of sensitivity without physical contact. This method could be easily extrapolated to sensors with more than one axis. This application the technique of Liu would yield similar results when applied to such a second axis for calibration. It would merely require repositioning the sensor and/or the magnetic field applied to the sensor for calibration. It is accordingly found to be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device and method of Liu to work on sensors with more than one sensitive axis, and then apply a tension or a compression to each axis and measure the response of the sensor to this tension or compression. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to calibrate multi-axis force sensors in the same manner. With regards to claim 41 , Liu teaches the method according to claim 33. Liu does not expressly teach the implemented stress being comprised between 1/10 Newton and 1 Newton or more than 1 Newton. Still, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Liu such that the implemented stress being comprised between 1/10 Newton and 1 Newton or more than 1 Newton, since it has been held that 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. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to choose an applied force in this range so as to characterize sensors sensitive to these forces . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 33, and further in view of CN 107655623 to Ye et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ye) . With regards to claim 39 , Liu teaches the method according to claim 33. However, Liu is silent as to the precise type of the sensor (the sensor being of the piezoresistive or capacitive, or piezoelectric type or including a scale or a weighing machine or a balance). Ye teaches a related non-contact calibration method for force sensors, and specifically states that the method is used to calibrate piezoelectric type force sensors. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly apply the method of Liu to a piezoelectric sensor, in order to calibrate such sensor with the advantages taught by Liu (see [0013]-[0015]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30. 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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. /JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 3 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 13 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/646,254 Page 14 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights