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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200292294 to Misaizu in view of US 20070151356 Sumigawa.
Regarding Claim 1, Misaizu discloses a strain gauge (Figs. 1-2, strain gauge 1; ¶¶ [0032]-[0036]) comprising: a substrate made of a resin (Figs. 1-2, resin substrate 10; ¶¶ [0032]-[0036]); and a resistor situated on one surface side of the substrate and formed of a film that includes Cr, CrN, and Cr.sub.2N (Figs. 1-2, resistor 30 with Cr composite film of Cr, CrN, Cr.sub.2N; ¶¶ [0042]-[0048]). However, Misaizu is silent regarding an elastic modulus of the substrate is greater than 9.8 GPa. Sumigawa discloses an elastic modulus of the substrate is greater than 9.8 GPa (Figs. 1-5, resin used as material of bonding/fixing intermediate member 13 with Young's modulus of about 10 to 20 GPa; ¶¶ [0038]-[0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Misaizu by providing an elastic modulus of the substrate is greater than 9.8 GPa as in Sumigawa in order to provide for higher precision strain measurement.
Regarding Claim 5, Misaizu discloses one surface of the substrate provides a protective layer that covers the resistor (Figs. 1-2, resin substrate 10 and/or resin cover 60; ¶¶ [0032]-[0036]); and Sumigawa discloses an elastic modulus of the protective layer is greater than 9.8 GPa (Figs. 1-5, resin used as material of bonding/fixing intermediate member 12 and/or resin protective member 12 with Young's modulus of about 10 to 20 GPa; ¶¶ [0037]-[0041]).
Regarding Claim 6, Sumigawa discloses an elastic modulus of the substrate is greater than or equal to 10.4 GPa (Figs. 1-5, resin used as material of bonding/fixing intermediate member 12 and/or resin protective member 12 with Young's modulus of about 10 to 20 GPa; ¶¶ [0037]-[0041]).
Regarding Claim 7, Sumigawa discloses an elastic modulus of the substrate is greater than or equal to 12.6 GPa (Figs. 1-5, resin used as material of bonding/fixing intermediate member 12 and/or resin protective member 12 with Young's modulus of about 10 to 20 GPa; ¶¶ [0037]-[0041]).
Regarding Claim 8, Sumigawa discloses an elastic modulus of the substrate is greater than or equal to 14.7 GPa (Figs. 1-5, resin used as material of bonding/fixing intermediate member 12 and/or resin protective member 12 with Young's modulus of about 10 to 20 GPa; ¶¶ [0037]-[0041]).
Regarding Claim 9, Misaizu discloses a gauge factor of the strain gauge is 10 or more (¶ [0031]).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misaizu in view of Sumigawa as applied to claim 1, and further in view of JP 04107899 to Hosoi.
Regarding Claim 2, Misaizu in view of Sumigawa discloses the strain gauge according to claim 1, but do not disclose at least one surface side of the substrate is carbonized and/or graphitized. Hosoi discloses at least one surface side of the substrate is carbonized and/or graphitized (Fig. 1 ion beam 4 passes through the conductor thin film 2 and carbonizes the part of the polymer film 3 in contact with the conductor thin film 2. Further, ion mixing is caused in the boundary part between the conductor thin film 2 and the carbonized polymer film 31 to form a gradient composition; Page 6, ¶¶ 2-12 of applicant provided translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Misaizu in view of Sumigawa by providing at least one surface side of the substrate is carbonized and/or graphitized as in Hosoi in order to provide for improved bonding and/or heat resistance.
Regarding Claim 3, Hosoi discloses a degree of carbonization and/or graphitization is decreased from the one surface side toward the other surface side (Fig. 1 ion beam 4 passes through the conductor thin film 2 and carbonizes the part of the polymer film 3 in contact with the conductor thin film 2. Further, ion mixing is caused in the boundary part between the conductor thin film 2 and the carbonized polymer film 31 to form a gradient composition; Page 6, ¶¶ 2-12 of applicant provided translation).
Regarding Claim 4, Hosoi discloses the degree of carbonization and/or graphitization varies continuously from the one surface side toward the other surface side (Fig. 1 ion beam 4 passes through the conductor thin film 2 and carbonizes the part of the polymer film 3 in contact with the conductor thin film 2. Further, ion mixing is caused in the boundary part between the conductor thin film 2 and the carbonized polymer film 31 to form a gradient composition; Page 6, ¶¶ 2-12 of applicant provided translation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BOLDUC whose telephone number is (571)270-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at (571) 272-1672. 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.
/DAVID J BOLDUC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights