DETAILED ACTIONAcknowledgment is made of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 1/7/25.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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Strain gage having a gauge factor greater than existing strain gages and a low transverse sensitivity ratio”. 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.
Claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misaizu et al. (2021/0018382, hereinafter Misaizu – See IDS dated 7/15/26) in view of Zhang et al. (“All-printed strain sensors: Building blocks of the aircraft structural health monitoring system”, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Misaizu discloses an apparatus comprising a substrate 10; and a resistor 30 formed over the substrate, wherein the resistor is made of a material containing Cr as a main component, a line width of the resistor is 70 um or less and a gauge factor of the strain gauge is equal to or greater than 5 (See Pg. 2, Paras. 0046 – 0048 and Pg. 3, Paras. 0049 – 0051). Masaizu fails to disclose that a line width of the resistor is 70 um or less such that a transverse sensitivity ratio of the strain gauge is equal to or less than 70%. However, Zhang discloses an apparatus comprising a resistor having a line width that is 70 um or less such that a transverse sensitivity ratio of the strain gauge is equal to or less than 70% (See Fig. 6, Table 2, See Figs. 8a, 8b and 9, See Pg. 168, Para. 3.2, “Gage Factor” and Pg. 169, Para. 3.4, “Transverse sensitivity”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Misaizu according to the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device have significantly higher gage factors and exhibit excellent linearity (See Zhang, Pg. 171, Para. 4, “Conclusion”).
Regarding claim 2, Misaizu fails to disclose that the line width of the resistor is 20 um or less such that the transverse sensitivity ratio is equal to or less than 50%. However, Zhang discloses an apparatus comprising a resistor having a line width that is 20 um or less such that a transverse sensitivity ratio of the strain gauge is equal to or less than 50% (See Fig. 6, Table 2, See Figs. 8a, 8b and 9, See Pg. 168, Para. 3.2, “Gage Factor” and Pg. 169, Para. 3.4, “Transverse sensitivity”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Misaizu according to the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device have significantly higher gage factors and exhibit excellent linearity (See Zhang, Pg. 171, Para. 4, “Conclusion”).
Regarding claim 3, Misaizu fails to disclose that the line width of the resistor is 10 um or less such that the transverse sensitivity ratio is equal to or less than 40%. However, Zhang discloses an apparatus comprising a resistor having a line width that is 10 um or less such that a transverse sensitivity ratio of the strain gauge is equal to or less than 40% (See Fig. 6, Table 2, See Figs. 8a, 8b and 9, See Pg. 168, Para. 3.2, “Gage Factor” and Pg. 169, Para. 3.4, “Transverse sensitivity”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Misaizu according to the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device have significantly higher gage factors and exhibit excellent linearity (See Zhang, Pg. 171, Para. 4, “Conclusion”).
Regarding claim 4, in Misaizu, the gauge factor is not dependent on the line width of the resistor (See Pg. 2, Paras. 0046 – 0048 and Pg. 3, Paras. 0049 – 0051). Misaizu fails to disclose that the transverse sensitivity ratio has a positive correlation with a logarithm of the line width of the resistor and decreases as the line width of the resistor narrows. However, Zhang discloses an apparatus comprising a transverse sensitivity ratio having a positive correlation with a logarithm of the line width of the resistor and that decreases as the line width of the resistor narrows (See Fig. 6, Table 2, See Figs. 8a, 8b and 9, See Pg. 168, Para. 3.2, “Gage Factor” and Pg. 169, Para. 3.4, “Transverse sensitivity”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Misaizu according to the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device have significantly higher gage factors and exhibit excellent linearity (See Zhang, Pg. 171, Para. 4, “Conclusion”). Regarding claim 5, in Misaizu, the resistor is formed of a film containing Cr, CrN, and Cr2N (See Pg. 2, Para. 0044).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.7. Ogasa et al. (12,699,015) disclose a strain gage. Ishihara et al. (12,595,998) disclose a strain gage. Toda et al. (2026/0036474) disclose a strain gage. Toda et al. (2026/0029284) disclose a strain gage. Kitamura et al. (11,774,303) disclose an accelerator, steering wheel, six-axis sensor, engine, bumper and the like. Kitamura et al. (2023/0175831) disclose a strain gage. Sato (2022/0390301) discloses a strain gage and sensor module. Toda et al. (11,326,967) disclose a strain gage with improved temperature effect detection. Misaizu et al. (11,543,309) disclose a strain gage and sensor module. Aizawa et al. (2020/0393311) disclose a strain gage and sensor module.8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 10/13/26
