DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that “Hemmerer offers no teaching, suggestion, or motivation concerning, for example, (i) patterned electrodes, (ii) surface-area ratios of electrode segments, or (iii) any causal relationship between electrode patterning and localized heating performance. Therefore, Hemmerer does not provide the guidance necessary to predict-let alone achieve-the technical effects exhibited by the claimed configuration” (Page 8 of applicant’s remarks filed 11/17/2025). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Cho is relied upon to teach the patterned electrode configuration and the surface-area ratios of the electrode segments. Regarding the electrode patterning and localized heating performance, the claim limitations are not limited in such a way wherein any causal relationship between electrode patterning and localized heating performance is required under broadest reasonable interpretation. Cho does teach that electrode patterning is a concern known in the art, as the distance between adjacent electrode surfaces should be 5mm or more such as to avoid first electrode patterns contacting each other directly under pressure (Cho Paragraph 49) and 30mm or less such as to avoid the facing area not being sensed when under pressure (Cho Paragraph 50). Cho finally teaches that the total area of the sensed area is preferably 400 cm squared or less, but should be adjusted according to the installed area (Cho Paragraph 51).
Regarding the applicant’s argument regarding Cho that the applicant’s range “reflects a qualitatively distinct operational regime, rather than a mere optimization of known parameters” (Page 8 of applicant’s remarks filed 11/17/2025). However, the motivation of the range provided by the applicant that if “the total area of the plurality of electrode surfaces compared to the total area of the front electrode is too small (e.g., less than 25%), the heating function according to the pressure sensitivity is not performed properly, and thus, it may be difficult to immediately feel a temperature increase during pressurization, and if the total area of the plurality of electrode surfaces is too large (e.g., more than 50%), it may be difficult to cause selective and selective heating based on pressure sensitivity” (Page 11 of applicant’s specifications filed 10/28/2021) is similar to the one provided by Cho which teaches that the distance between electrode surfaces should be adjusted to adjust the sensitivity of the sensed area (Cho Paragraphs 49-51) especially as changing the distance between electrode surfaces affects the area of the electrode surfaces to the total area. It is thus known to one of ordinary skill in the art that affecting the pressure sensitive of the sensor is desirable and that adjusting variables which affect the total area of the electrode surfaces affect said variable. As such, it would thus be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify HAMMERER such that a total area of the plurality of electrode surfaces is 25% to 50% of a total area of the front electrode, as discovering an optimal value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art as stated by MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding the applicant’s argument that SCHRÖDNER “relies on a binary on/off switching mechanism, whereas the claimed configuration provides, e.g., continuous control of the current flow and heating, the two systems operate on fundamentally different principles” (Page 9 of applicant’s remarks filed 11/17/2025). However, said limitations discussing a continuous control of the current flow are not properly disclosed in the current claims. Should the applicant wish to claim continuous control of current flow and heating, the examiner recommends the applicant amend the claims such as to reflect such a limitation. The Office notes that SCHRÖDNER is relied upon simply to teach that polyurethane is known in the art to be a foam which is used in pressure sensitive heaters which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to use as the foam of HAMMERER due to obvious engineering choice.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Jaehyuk teaches a piezo-resistive pressure sensor made of polyurethane which has a density of 0.032 g/cc (Jaehyuk Page 5 Table 3) which is within the range of the applicant’s claimed range. Paragraph 14 of SCHRÖDNER teaches that polyurethane foam is known in the art to be used with pressure sensitive heaters, not just pressure sensors in general. As such, it would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HAMMERER with Jaehyuk and have the density of the foam be 0.032 g/cc. This would have been done as using such a density for polyurethane foam in known in the art and further to facilitate providing the sensor with various benefits in terms of measuring range, robustness, response time, and hysteresis (Jaehyuk Page 9 Conclusion). The unique effects the applicant refers to on Page 10 of the filed remarks are not present in the claims and thus under broadest reasonable interpretation are not limiting. The Office recommends to the applicant to amend the claim to include the structure and functions associated with such unique effects if they desire such effects to be limiting.
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) 1-2, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMMERER (DE 102004058721 A1) in view of CHO (US 20190021504 A1), SCHRÖDNER (US 20210207815 A1), and Jaehyuk (Ultra-robust wide-range pressure sensor with fast response based on polyurethane foam doubly coated with conformal silicone rubber and CNT/TPU nanocomposites islands, 15 November 2019, ScienceDirect).
Regarding claim 1, HAMMERER (DE 102004058721 A1) teaches a pressure sensitive heating element (Figure 1, pressure dependent electrical resistance by means of a multi-layer heating element) comprising:
a front electrode (Paragraph 21, metal foil 4); and
a foam including a conductive material directly attached to one or both surfaces of the front electrode (Paragraph 21, surfaces of the carbon-doped foam 2 and 3 is coated with the metal foil 4), wherein:
the front electrode (Paragraph 21, metal foil 4) includes:
a plurality of electrode surfaces (Figures 1-2 Paragraph 12, outer layer is constructed from a plurality of discrete conductor tracks wherein there exists at least a top and a bottom layer);
a connection portion electrically connecting the plurality of electrode surfaces (Paragraph 21, voltage 7 is applied via the supply lines to supply the power supply to the individual sections)1
a power connection portion configured to supply power to the front electrode (Figure 1 Paragraph 21, metal foil 4 is connected to a power supply and a measuring device via supply lines)
the conductive material is located on an inner surface of the foam (Paragraph 8, plastic is doped with an electrically conductive material), and
when pressure is applied to the foam (Paragraph 8, resistance of the materials in the electrically conductive foam is changed by applying pressure to the plastic), an electrical contact of a certain level or higher is formed to supply current to the front electrode (Paragraph 5, pressure is applied to the surface the electrical resistance of the device drops significantly so that a significant current can flow through the device; Paragraph 22, uncompressed area the doping and resistance remains constant which prevents current flow).
HAMMERER fails to explicitly teach:
the front electrode includes:
a total area of the plurality of electrode surfaces is 25% to 50% of a total area of the front electrode
the foam is a polyurethane foam
the density of the polyurethane foam is 0.03 g/cc to 0.04 g/cc
CHO (US 20190021504 A1) teaches the electrode surfaces may not be the same and can have varying widths (Paragraph 53). Cho further teaches that the distance a between adjacent electrode surfaces should be 5mm or more such as to avoid first electrode patterns contacting under pressure (Paragraph 49) and 30mm or less such as to avoid the facing area not being sensed (Paragraph 50). Cho finally teaches that the total area of the sensed area is preferably 400 cm squared or less, but should be adjusted according to the installed area (Paragraph 51). It would thus be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify HAMMERER such that a total area of the plurality of electrode surfaces is 25% to 50% of a total area of the front electrode, as discovering an optimal value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art as stated by MPEP 2144.05(II).
While CHO does not teach of a pressure sensitive heating element, it is relevant as it teaches a pressure sensing system with a plurality of discrete conductor tracks wherein opposing conductor tracks are arranged at right angles to each other which is identical in form and purpose to the pressure sensitive element of HAMMERER and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the dimensions provided by HAMMERER to obtain the dimensions for an accurate pressure sensing device.
HAMMERER fails to teach:
the foam is a polyurethane foam
the density of the polyurethane foam is 0.03 g/cc to 0.04 g/cc
SCHRÖDNER (US 20210207815 A1) teaches an electrical heating mat, wherein:
the foam is a polyurethane foam (Paragraph 14, plastics include polyurethanes; Paragraph 15, electrically conductive plastic is present in foamed form).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HAMMERER with SCHRÖDNER and have the conductive material be carbon nanotubes. Polyurethane foam is an acceptable version of foam for acting as an electrically conductive plastic within pressure sensitive heaters (SCHRÖDNER Paragraph 14).
HAMMERER as modified fails to teach:
the density of the polyurethane foam is 0.03 g/cc to 0.04 g/cc.
Jaehyuk (Ultra-robust wide-range pressure sensor with fast response based on polyurethane foam doubly coated with conformal silicone rubber and CNT/TPU nanocomposites islands, 15 November 2019, ScienceDirect) teaches a pressure sensor with fast response based on polyurethane foam, wherein:
the density of the polyurethane foam is 0.03 g/cc to 0.04 g/cc (Page 3 Figure 1, electrodes are connected to a polyurethane foam; Page 5 Table 3, density of the polyurethane foam is 0.032 g/cc).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HAMMERER with Jaehyuk and have the density of the foam be 0.032 g/cc. This would have been done as using such a density for polyurethane foam in known in the art and further to facilitate providing the sensor with various benefits in terms of measuring range, robustness, response time, and hysteresis (Jaehyuk Page 9 Conclusion).
Regarding claim 4, HAMMERER as modified teaches the pressure sensitive heating element of claim 1, wherein:
an electrical contact of a certain level or higher is formed on a surface to which pressure is applied, among the plurality of electrode surfaces, to supply current to the front electrode (Paragraph 5, pressure is applied to the surface the electrical resistance of the device drops significantly so that a significant current can flow through the device; Paragraph 12, crossing areas between the opposite conductor tracks through the plastic).
Regarding claim 6, HAMMERER as modified teaches the pressure sensitive heating element of claim 1, wherein:
the connection portion is in a form of a wire (Figure 1 Paragraph 21, supply lines apply voltage to the individual sections)2.
Regarding claim 8, HAMMERER as modified teaches the pressure sensitive heating element of claim 1, wherein:
the conductive material is carbon (Paragraph 10, conductive doping material is carbon).
SCHRÖDNER (US 20210207815 A1) further teaches:
the conductive material is carbon nanotube (CNT) (Paragraph 14, carbon nanotubes are suitable additives for the plastic conductor foam).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HAMMERER with SCHRÖDNER and have the conductive material be carbon nanotubes. Carbon nanotubes are an acceptable version of carbon for acting as the conductive material within the electrically conductive plastic for pressure sensitive heaters (SCHRÖDNER Paragraph 14).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMMERER (DE 102004058721 A1) in view of CHO (US 20190021504 A1), SCHRÖDNER (US 20210207815 A1), and Jaehyuk (Ultra-robust wide-range pressure sensor with fast response based on polyurethane foam doubly coated with conformal silicone rubber and CNT/TPU nanocomposites islands, 15 November 2019, ScienceDirect) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PARK (KR 20170057133 A).
Regarding claim 7, HAMMERER as modified teaches the pressure sensitive heating element of claim 1.
HAMMERER fails to teach:
a first urethane film is attached to a surface to which the foam is not attached in the electrode surface and the power connection portion, a second urethane film is attached to both surfaces of the connection portion.
PARK (KR 20170057133 A) teaches a pressure sensor, wherein:
the dielectric layer which electrically connect the electrodes is formed of a foamed urethane (Paragraph 49) and the first and second supporting layers of the sensor is formed of urethane (Figures 5-7 Paragraph 44)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HAMMERER with PARK and have the foam be formed from urethane and the carbon-doped foam be formed of urethane. This would have been done to reduce errors in touch input (PARK Paragraph 9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 The Office further notes that the use of a connection portion to connect multiple individual discrete tracks is well known in the art as evidenced by Figure 25A of SWISHER (US 20220306888 A1).
2 The Office further notes that the use of conductive wires to connect a plurality of electrode surfaces to the power connection portion is well known in the art as evidenced by Lee (US 10209805 B2).