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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not a concise statement in single paragraph form. Furthermore, the abstract contains reference numerals which should be removed as reference numerals can change during prosecution. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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: Force and/or Torque Sensor Arrangement.
The specification is objected to because paragraph 0036 appears to include degree symbols in mm range values. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-15, the claims contain reference numerals in parenthesis. Examiner suggest removing the reference numerals as they can change during prosecution. Examiner suggest also submitting a clean copy of the claims along with a marked-up copy showing amendments. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-4 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.
Regarding claim 2, the clam recites “each of the connecting pieces has an axially extending first longitudinal section and an axially extending second longitudinal section, and wherein the first longitudinal section and the second longitudinal section are arranged in the same axial region”. However claim 1 recites respective first and second axial regions, therefore it is unclear what axial region claim 2 is referring to. Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite.
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 1-7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matich et al US11433550 (hereinafter “Matich”) in view of Nishioki et al US9995644 (hereinafter “Nishioki”).
Regarding claim 1, Matich discloses a sensor arrangement (abstract) for measuring a force and/or a torque, comprising a plurality of sensor sections (sensor sections-10-60), each having a sensor (sensor elements-130), the sensor sections being arranged around a first axis (See Fig 6-7); and a plurality of connecting pieces (connecting sections-210, 220), each of which connects two adjacent sensor sections (See Figs 4, 6-7) to one another, a connection between a connecting piece and a first sensor section of adjacent sensor sections being provided in a first axial region (connecting sections -210 connect to segments of the first contact structure-110 and connecting sections-220 connect to segments of the second contact structure-120, See Figs 4, 6-7). (Col 7 line 12-38)
However, Matich fails to disclose the connecting piece extending into a second axial region, which is different than the first axial region, in a gap between the adjacent sensor sections. Nishioki discloses the connecting piece (connecting channel-R1, R11) extending into a second axial region, which is different than the first axial region, in a gap between the adjacent sensor sections. (See Col 6 line 29-42, Col 12 line 61-Col 13 line 62, Col 34 line 4-31, Claim 6, Fig 10 and 21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Nishioki into Matich for the purpose of creating a more compact device. The modification would allow for controlling deformation resistance and decrease potential damage to the device.
Regarding claim 2, Matich disclose the arrangement according to claim 1.
However, Matich fails to disclose each of the connecting pieces has an axially extending first longitudinal section and an axially extending second longitudinal section, and wherein the first longitudinal section and the second longitudinal section are arranged in the same axial region. Nishioki discloses each of the connecting pieces (connecting channel-R1, R11) has an axially extending first longitudinal section and an axially extending second longitudinal section, and wherein the first longitudinal section and the second longitudinal section are arranged in the same axial region. (See Col 8 line 3-26, Col 12 line 61-Col 13 line 62, claim 18, Figs 10, 14, and 21 which discloses the U-shaped by-pass design)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Nishioki into Matich for the purpose of creating a more compact device. The modification would allow for controlling deformation resistance and decrease potential damage to the device.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Matich in view of Nishioki discloses the arrangement according to claim 2.
Furthermore, Matich discloses he first longitudinal section and the second longitudinal section are twisted. (Col 8 line 18-28, See Figs 4, and 6-7 which discloses rolling the planar structure so each sensors structures are bent and twisted.)
Regarding claim 4, Matich disclose the arrangement according to claim 2.
However, Matich fails to disclose the first longitudinal section and the second longitudinal section of a connecting piece each have a first end and a second end, each of the first ends being connected to one of the adjacent sensor sections, and the second ends being connected to one another by way of a deflection section of the connecting piece. Nishioki discloses the first longitudinal section and the second longitudinal section of a connecting piece (connecting channel-R1, R11) each have a first end and a second end, each of the first ends being connected to one of the adjacent sensor sections, and the second ends being connected to one another by way of a deflection section of the connecting piece. (See Col 8 line 3-26, Col 12 line 61-Col 13 line 62, claim 18, Figs 10, 14, and 21 which discloses the U-shaped by-pass design having the first ends being connected to one of the adjacent sensor sections and the second sections being connected to one another by way of a deflection section in the channel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Nishioki into Matich for the purpose of creating a more compact device. The modification would allow for controlling deformation resistance and decrease potential damage to the device.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Matich in view of Nishioki discloses the arrangement according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Matich discloses a further connection between the connecting piece (connecting sections-210, 220), and a second sensor section of the adjacent sensor sections (sensor sections-10-60) is provided in the first axial region. (Col 2 line 56-67, Col 6 line 31-35, Col 7 line 12-Col 8 line 17)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Matich in view of Nishioki discloses the arrangement according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Matich discloses each of the connecting pieces connecting sections-210, 220), is in the form of a solid joint having a joint axis parallel to the first axis. (Col 2 line 56-67, Col 6 line 31-35, Col 7 line 12-Col 8 line 17)
Regarding clam 7, Matich disclose the arrangement according to claim 1.
However, Matich fails to disclose each of the connecting pieces extends in the axial direction over at least one quarter of an axial length of a sensor section. Nishioki discloses each of the connecting pieces (connecting channel-R1, R11) extends in the axial direction over an axial length of a sensor section. (See Col 6 line 29-42, Col 12 line 61-Col 13 line 62, Col 34 line 4-31, Claim 6, Figs 10-12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Nishioki into Matich for the purpose of creating a more compact device. The modification would allow for controlling deformation resistance and decrease potential damage to the device.
The combination discloses the arrangement except for the connecting pieces extends in the axial direction over at least one quarter of an axial length of a sensor section. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to make the connecting pieces extend in the axial direction over at least a quarter of an axial length of a sensor section, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP2144.05 (II-A)). Please note in the instant specification, paragraph 0017, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Matich in view of Nishioki discloses the arrangement according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Matich discloses a first cover (first lid-610) and a second cover (second lid-620), wherein each of the sensor sections (sensor sections-10-60), is arranged at least in part axially between the first cover and the second cover (See Figs 8A-B).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Matich in view of Nishioki discloses the arrangement according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Matich discloses the plurality of sensor sections (sensor sections-10-60) are arranged all around the first axis. (See Fig 6-8B). (Col 7 line 12-38)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Matich in view of Nishioki discloses the arrangement according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Matich discloses the sensor arrangement has a diameter perpendicular to the first axis of not more than 15 mm. (Col 1 line 20-33)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Matich in view of Nishioki discloses the arrangement according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Matich discloses a method (See claims 11 and 13) for producing a sensor arrangement (abstract) according to claim 1, comprising providing the plurality of sensor sections (sensor sections-10-60), connected by way of the connecting pieces (connecting sections-210, 220), the sensor sections being arranged in one plane (See Figs 4 and 6-8B); and coiling the sensor sections to arrange the sensor sections around the first axis (Claims 11 and 13). (Col 7 line 12-38).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matich et al US11433550 (hereinafter “Matich”) in view of Nishioki et al US9995644 (hereinafter “Nishioki”) in further view of Dr Schwab GES Fur Tech MBH DE102015214953 (hereinafter “Schwab”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses the arrangement according to claim 1.
However, the combination fails to disclose the sensor arrangement further comprises an electrical supply line the electrical supply line being arranged at one of the connecting pieces. Schwab discloses the sensor arrangement further comprises an electrical supply line the electrical supply line being arranged at one of the connecting pieces. (See Paragraphs 0025-0032, Fig 3, claim 3 discloses a meandering flexible printed circuit board (L) with soldering/connecting lugs (F1-12) to connection pads 1.1-8.4 of strain gauges (1-8) with vias (D3) to contacts (K1-10 in a contact area (10) for connection to an evaluation device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Schwab into Matich for the purpose of creating a more efficient device. The modification would allow for creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for keeping the evaluation device from pressing on the gauges.
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses the arrangement according to claim 8.
However, the combination fails to disclose the electrical supply line is arranged at a deflection section of one of the connecting pieces. Schwab discloses the electrical supply line (41) is arranged at a deflection section (31) of one of the connecting pieces (21). (See Paragraphs 0025-0032, Fig 3, claim 3 discloses a meandering flexible printed circuit board (L) with soldering/connecting lugs (F1-12) to connection pads 1.1-8.4 of strain gauges (1-8) with vias (D3) to contacts (K1-10 in a contact area (10) for connection to an evaluation device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Schwab into Matich for the purpose of creating a more efficient device. The modification would allow for creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for keeping the evaluation device from pressing on the gauges.
Regarding claim 10, Matich discloses the connecting pieces (connecting sections-210, 220), mechanically connect the sensor sections (sensor sections-10-60), in series. See Figs 4, 6-7, Col 7 line 12-38)
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the electrical supply line is provided at a connecting piece that is arranged centrally in the series. Schwab discloses wherein the electrical supply line is provided at a connecting piece that is arranged centrally in the series. (See Paragraphs 0025-0032, Fig 3, claim 3 discloses a meandering flexible printed circuit board (L) with soldering/connecting lugs (F1-12) to connection pads 1.1-8.4 of strain gauges (1-8) with vias (D3) to contacts (K1-10 in a contact area (10) arranged in series)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Schwab into Matich for the purpose of creating a more efficient device. The modification would allow for creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for keeping the evaluation device from pressing on the gauges.
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses the arrangement according to claim 1.
However, the combination fails to disclose a flexible printed circuit board having sensor section regions and connecting piece regions, wherein each of the sensor sections comprises one of the sensor section regions)of the flexible printed circuit board, and wherein the connecting piece regions of the flexible printed circuit board provide the connecting pieces. the electrical supply line is arranged at a deflection section of one of the connecting. Schwab discloses a flexible printed circuit board having sensor section regions and connecting piece regions, wherein each of the sensor sections comprises one of the sensor section regions of the flexible printed circuit board, and wherein the connecting piece regions of the flexible printed circuit board provide the connecting pieces. the electrical supply line is arranged at a deflection section of one of the connecting. (See Paragraphs 0025-0032, Fig 3, claim 1 and 3 discloses a meandering flexible printed circuit board (L) with soldering/connecting lugs (F1-12) to connection pads 1.1-8.4 of strain gauges (1-8) with vias (D3) to contacts (K1-10 in a contact area (10) for connection to an evaluation device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Schwab into Matich for the purpose of creating a more efficient device. The modification would allow for creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for keeping the evaluation device from pressing on the gauges.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shun et al US11187599 discloses a strain body according to the embodiments includes a central portion, an outer peripheral portion, connecting portions each includes a first connecting portion adjacent to the outer peripheral portion and a second connecting portion adjacent to the central portion, strain sensors provided on main surfaces of the connecting portions, reference resistors provided on a main surface of the central portion, and a strain increasing portion configured to increase strain occurring at the first connecting portion more than strain occurring at the second connecting portion, on a back surface side opposed to the main surface of the first connecting portion.
Glusiec US11085838 discloses a force/torque sensor includes a plurality of serpentine or spiral deformable beams connecting a TAP and MAP. These classes of shapes increase the overall length of the deformable beams, which reduces their stiffness. In addition to the deformable beams is a plurality of straight overload beams, each connected at a first end to one of the TAP and MAP, and separated from the other of the TAP and MAP at the second end by an overload gap of a predetermined width. Over a first range of forces and torques, strain gages on the deformable beams transduce compressive and tensile strains into electrical signals, which are processed to resolve the forces and torques. Over a second range of forces and torques greater than the first range, the overload beams close the overload gap, establishing rigid contact to both the TAP and MAP. The stiffness of the sensor in the second range of forces and torques is greater than over the first range.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-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 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights