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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claims 1 – 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,158,381 to Ogawa. Regarding claim 1, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims include a strain body including a base portion, a displacement portion, a board including a detection unit and an interposed member interposed between the strain body and the board and including an extending portion extending in a second direction and intersecting a surface of the board and the first direction but fail to disclose that the extending portion has a flat spring structure having a higher modulus of elasticity in the first direction than in the second direction. However, in Ogawa, the extending portion includes portions that extend in first and second directions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate an extending portion having a flat spring structure since the extending portion comprises multiple directions. Regarding claim 2, the extending portion has a flat spring structure having a higher modulus of elasticity in the first direction than in the second direction (See claim 12 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 3, the interposed member includes the extending portion and a bottom portion having a first surface from which the extending portion extends and a second surface opposite to the first surface, wherein the extending portion is fixed to one of the displacement portion and the board, and wherein the second surface is fixed to the other of the displacement portion and the board (See claim 2 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 4, the interposed member includes a first extending portion serving as the extending portion, a second extending portion extending in a third direction intersecting the surface of the board and the first direction, the third direction being different from the second direction, and a bottom portion having a first surface from which the first extending portion extends and a second surface from which the second extending portion extends, the second surface being opposite to the first surface, wherein the first extending portion is fixed to one of the displacement portion and the board, and wherein the second extending portion is fixed to the other of the displacement portion and the board (See claim 2 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 5, the second extending portion has a flat spring structure having a higher modulus of elasticity in the first direction than in the second direction (See claim 12 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 6, the interposed member has a coefficient of thermal expansion less than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the displacement portion and greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the board (See claim 3 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 7, the coefficient of thermal expansion of the interposed member is closer to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the board than to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the displacement portion (See claim 4 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 8, the interposed member includes the extending portion, and a bottom portion having a first surface from which the extending portion extends and a second surface opposite to the first surface, wherein the extending portion is fixed to one of the base portion and the board, and wherein the second surface is fixed to the other of the base portion and the board (See claim 5 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 9, the interposed member including a first extending portion serving as the extending portion, a second extending portion extending in a third direction intersecting the surface of the board and the first direction, the third direction being different from the second direction, and a bottom portion having a first surface from which the first extending portion extends and a second surface from which the second extending portion extends, the second surface being opposite to the first surface, wherein the first extending portion is fixed to one of the base portion and the board, and wherein the second extending portion is fixed to the other of the base portion and the board (See claim 11 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 10, the second extending portion has a flat spring structure having a higher modulus of electricity in the first direction than in the second direction (See claim 12 of Ogawa). Regarding claim 11, the interposed member has a coefficient of thermal expansion less than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the base portion and greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the board (See claim 3 of Ogawa). Regarding claim 12, the coefficient of thermal expansion of the interposed member is closer to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the board than to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the base portion (See claim 4 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 13, a thickness of the extending portion in the first direction is smaller than a thickness in a direction orthogonal to the first direction (See claim 8 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 14, a thickness of the extending portion in the first direction is smaller than a thickness in a direction orthogonal to the first direction (See claim 8 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 15, a thickness of the first extending portion in the first direction and a thickness of the second extending portion in the first direction each are smaller than a thickness in a direction orthogonal to the corresponding first direction (See claim 15 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 16, the robot comprises a movable unit and a control unit configured to control operation of the movable unit based on an output from the force sensor (See claim 16 of Ogawa). Regarding claim 17, the robot comprises a movable unit; and a control unit configured to control operation of the movable unit based on an output from the force sensor (See claim 16 of Ogawa).
Regarding claim 18, the robot comprises a movable unit; and a control unit configured to control operation of the movable unit based on an output from the force sensor (See claim 16 of Ogawa).
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.
6. Claims 1, 3, 6 - 8, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Nagura (JP2019074421-See IDS dated 5/3/22).
Regarding claim 1, Nagura discloses a strain body including a base portion 1, a
displacement portion 2 configured to make a displacement relative to the base portion
under external force, and an elastic connection portion 3 configured to elastically
connect the base portion and the displacement portion, a board 6 including a
detection unit 10E, 10F configured to detect the displacement of the displacement
portion relative to the base portion in a first direction; and an interposed member 30
interposed between the strain body and the board, the interposed member including
an extending portion extending in a second direction intersecting a surface of the
board and the first direction (See Fig. 7, See Pg. 2, lines 9 35 and Pg. 7, lines 21
27).
Regarding claim 3, the interposed member 30 includes the extending portion
and a bottom portion having a first surface from which the extending portion extends
and a second surface opposite to the first surface, wherein the extending portion is
fixed to one of the displacement portion 2 and the board 6, and wherein the second
surface is fixed to the other of the displacement portion and the board (See Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, the interposed member 30 has a coefficient of thermal
expansion less than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the displacement portion 2
and greater than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the board 6 (See Pg. 5, lines 1-
10).
Regarding claim 7, the coefficient of thermal expansion of the interposed
member 30 is closer to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the board than to the
coefficient of thermal expansion of the displacement portion caused by the
movement of heat with respect to the force sensor (See Pg. 5, lines 1 - 10).
Regarding claim 8, the interposed member 30 includes the extending portion,
and a bottom portion having a first surface from which the extending portion extends
and a second surface opposite to the first surface, wherein the extending portion is
fixed to one of the base portion and the board, and wherein the second surface is
fixed to the other of the base portion and the board (See Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, the interposed member has a coefficient of thermal
expansion less than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the base portion and greater
than a coefficient of thermal expansion of the board (See Pg. 5, lines 1- 10).
Regarding claim 12, the coefficient of thermal expansion of the interposed
member is closer to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the board than to the
coefficient of thermal expansion of the base portion (See Pg. 5, lines 1 10).
Regarding claim 16, a robot 400 comprising a movable unit 200 is provided and
a control unit 210 is configured to control operation of the movable unit based on an
output from the force sensor (See Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 17, a robot 400 comprising a movable unit 200 is provided and
a control unit 210 is configured to control operation of the movable unit based on an
output from the force sensor (See Fig. 9). Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.8. Ogawa et al. (2022/0283047) discloses a force sensor. Okada et al. (JP2020056729) disclose a force sensor. Okada et al. (10,564,059) disclose a force sensor. Nagura (2019/03101510 discloses an optical sensor and apparatus including optical sensor. Okada et al. (CN104272073) disclose a force sensor. Sakano et al. (2012/0180575) disclose a capacitance type force sensor.9. 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 9/30/26
Prosecution Insights