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 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.
Claim(s) 15-20, 22-24 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doko et al. (U.S. 2018/0238749, hereafter referred to as Doko) in view of Rauter et al. (WO 2019/243597, hereafter referred to as Rauter).
Regarding claim 15, Doko teaches a force measuring device comprising: a spring module, comprising: a test head (64, 70) defining an outer surface of the force measuring device; a spring seat 40; a spring 50 arranged between the test head and the spring seat, with a first end of the spring engaging the test head and a second end of the spring engaging the spring seat (see figure 4); and an electronic module, detachably mechanically connected to the spring module, the electronic module comprising: a force sensor 30 arranged in physical contact with the spring seat.
However, Doko does not explicitly teach a spring force adjustment arrangement arranged to adjust an accumulated force of the spring.
Rauter teaches a similar force measuring device including a spring 4, a force sensor 31, and a spring force adjustment arrangement 5 arranged to adjust an accumulated force of the spring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Doko with the teaching of Rauter in order to adapt the spring force of the spring element. Thereby, the range of forces to be detectable by the force sensing device can be adjusted (see Rauter, para. 0013).
Regarding claim 16, Doko further teaches wherein the spring is a compression spring (see para. 0034), a tension spring or a torsion spring.
Regarding claim 17, Doko further teaches wherein the test head is moveable between a first end position (See figure 2A) and a second end position (See figure 2B) during elastic deformation of the spring.
Regarding claim 18 and 19, Doko does not explicitly teach the spring module further comprising a rigid element fixed in relation to the test head and arranged to be in contact with the spring seat at the second end position.
Rauter teaches the spring module further comprising a rigid element 51 or rod-shaped component (see figure 4 & 11) fixed in relation to the test head 211.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Doko with the teaching of Rauter in order to adapt the spring force of the spring element. Thereby, the range of forces to be detectable by the force sensing device can be adjusted (see Rauter, para. 0013).
Regarding claim 20, Rauter further teaches wherein the spring force adjustment arrangement 5 is arranged to adjust a longitudinal extension of the spring (see para. 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Doko with the teaching of Rauter in order to adapt the spring force of the spring element. Thereby, the range of forces to be detectable by the force sensing device can be adjusted (see Rauter, para. 0013).
Regarding claim 22, Doko further teaches wherein the spring module comprises a head joint 64 fixed in relation to the test head 70 and a spring cover 62 fixed in relation to the spring seat.
Regarding claim 23, Doko further teaches wherein the spring cover and the head joint are telescopically arranged, allowing the head joint to be movable in relation to the spring cover in a longitudinal direction (see figures 2A & 2B).
Regarding claim 24, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct the test head to be detachably connected to the head joint since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 26, Doko teaches a method for measuring an external force applied by a user to the test head of the force measuring device of claim 15, the method comprising: the user applying a force to the test head; and the sensor measuring a first part of the applied force, said first part being transmitted to the spring seat via the spring (see figures 2A & 2B; See Para. 0032).
Regarding claim 27, Doko further teaches wherein the test head is moved from a first end position to a second end position by the force applied to the test head, during elastic deformation of the spring (see figures 2A & 2B).
Regarding claim 28, Doko further teaches wherein, when the test head has reached the second end position, the measuring further comprises measuring a second part of the applied force, said second part being transmitted to the spring seat via a rigid element contacting the spring seat, said rigid element being fixed in relation to the test head (see para. 0042-0044).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 and 25 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855