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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/24/26 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gocho et al. (JP 2011220865 A, hereinafter Gocho).
As to claim 1, Gocho teaches a force sensor 1 comprising:
a pressure-receiving member 12 that receives a load (¶17);
a sensor substrate 10 including a displaceable portion (¶17 teaches that the receiving member 12 is provided on element 11, ¶18 teaches that element 11 is displaced due to the load received by receiving portion 12, and figs. 1-2 show that the receiving member is laid directly on element 11; also, figs. 2-3 show that both of elements 11-12 are substantially centered with respect to the sensor substrate 10; accordingly, Gocho’s displaceable portion is at least a partial portion of element 11 that is entirely contained within the pressure receiving member 12 and fixing terminal 32 when viewed in a direction normal to package substrate 30) to be displaced under the load received by the pressure-receiving member (¶18), and a plurality of piezoelectric resistors 13 that electrically detect an amount of displacement of the displaceable portion (¶17-18);
a base substrate 20 having a sensor-mounting surface (upper surface) on which the sensor substrate is mounted, the base substrate including electrical wiring portions (electrical wiring drawn out from electrical connection portions 25 - ¶21 and fig. 4) electrically connected to the plurality of piezoelectric resistors (fig. 1, ¶17, ¶21-22 and ¶29 explain the electrical connections between the piezoelectric resistors 13, circuit wiring portions 16, electrical connection portions 15, electrical connection portions 25, and the electrical wiring portions described above); and
a package substrate 30 having a substrate-mounting surface (upper surface) on which the base substrate is mounted, and a pad surface (lower surface) located opposite the substrate-mounting surface, the pad surface having pad electrodes 31, 31 through to electrically connect to an external device (see ¶22; note that the external device is not positively recited as part of the claimed force sensor and is directed to an intended use of the force sensor; accordingly, the pad electrodes 31 are capable of being used to electrically connect to an external device),
wherein the pad surface (lower surface) of the package substrate has, when seen in the normal direction, a fixing terminal 32 at least a part of which overlaps at least a part (e.g. a portion) of a first area (e.g. upper surface area of the pressure receiving member 12) that coincides with the pressure-receiving member,
wherein the pressure-receiving member, the sensor substrate, and the base substrate are stacked in a normal direction with respect to the substrate-mounting surface (figs. 1-2),
wherein when seen in the normal direction, an entirety of the displaceable portion is located within the pressure-receiving member (as described above), and
wherein when seen in the normal direction, the pressure-receiving member is wider than both the displaceable portion (this is because “when seen in the normal direction, an entirety of the displaceable portion is located within the pressure-receiving member” as claimed above) and a region over which the plurality of piezoelectric resistors are arranged (the “region” is not positively recited as part of the claimed invention and could be a partial region of a table surface over which the force sensor is arranged, wherein the pressure-receiving member is wider than the region),
wherein when seen in the normal direction, the entirety of the displaceable portion is located within the fixing terminal (as detailed above),
wherein, when seen in the normal direction, which corresponds to an upper side of the pressure-receiving member, the displaceable portion is located such that it is concealed by the pressure-receiving member and therefore not visible (as explained above, Gocho’s displaceable portion is at least a partial portion of element 11 that is entirely contained within the pressure receiving member 12 and fixing terminal 32 when viewed in a direction normal to package substrate 30), and
wherein a length of the fixing terminal is substantially equal to a length of the pressure receiving member (as broadly recited).
If Applicant argues that Gocho does not teach wherein a length of the fixing terminal is substantially equal to a length of the pressure receiving member,
it has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record to show that a device having the claimed relative dimensions would perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Gocho such that a length of the fixing terminal is substantially equal to a length of the pressure receiving member since such a modification would be a mere change in dimensions for the predictable result that force is still successfully sensed.
As to claim 5, Gocho teaches wherein the fixing terminal 32 is comprised of a metal material that is solderable (¶24 teaches that terminal 32 is a soldering terminal, meaning it is made of metal).
As to claim 6, Gocho teaches a force sensor comprising:
a pressure-receiving member 12 that receives a load (¶17);
a sensor substrate 10 including a displaceable portion (¶17 teaches that the receiving member 12 is provided on element 11, ¶18 teaches that element 11 is displaced due to the load received by receiving portion 12, and figs. 1-2 show that the receiving member is laid directly on element 11; also, figs. 2-3 show that both of elements 11-12 are substantially centered with respect to the sensor substrate 10; accordingly, Gocho’s displaceable portion is at least a partial portion of element 11 that is entirely contained within the pressure receiving member 12 and fixing terminal 32 when viewed in a direction normal to package substrate 30) that is displaced by the load received by the pressure-receiving member (¶18), and a plurality of piezoelectric resistors 13 that detect an amount of displacement of the displaceable portion (¶17-18);
a base substrate 20 having a surface (upper surface) on which the sensor substrate is mounted, the base substrate including electrical wiring portions (electrical wiring drawn out from electrical connection portions 25 - ¶21 and fig. 4) electrically connected to the plurality of piezoelectric resistors (fig. 1, ¶17, ¶21-22 and ¶29 explain the electrical connections between the piezoelectric resistors 13, circuit wiring portions 16, electrical connection portions 15, electrical connection portions 25, and the electrical wiring portions described above); and
a package substrate 30 having a surface (upper surface) on which the base substrate is mounted, and a pad surface (lower surface) located opposite the substrate surface, the pad surface having pad electrodes 31, 31 to electrically connect to an external device (see ¶22; note that the external device is not positively recited as part of the claimed force sensor and is directed to an intended use of the force sensor; accordingly, the pad electrodes 31 are capable of being used to electrically connect to an external device),
wherein the pad surface of the package substrate has, when seen in the normal direction, a fixing terminal 32 at least a part of which overlaps at least a part (e.g. a portion) of a first area (e.g. upper surface area of the pressure receiving member) that coincides with the pressure-receiving member,
wherein the pressure-receiving member, the sensor substrate, and the base substrate are stacked in a normal direction with respect to the substrate surface (figs. 1-2),
wherein when seen in the normal direction, an entirety of the displaceable portion is located within the pressure-receiving member (as detailed above),
wherein when seen in the normal direction, the pressure-receiving member is wider than both the displaceable portion (this is because “when seen in the normal direction, an entirety of the displaceable portion is located within the pressure-receiving member” as claimed above) and a region over which the plurality of piezoelectric resistors are arranged (the “region” is not positively recited as part of the claimed invention and could be a partial region of a table surface over which the force sensor is arranged, wherein the pressure-receiving member is wider than the region),
wherein when seen in the normal direction, the entirety of the displaceable portion is located within the fixing terminal (as detailed above), and
wherein, when seen in the normal direction, which corresponds to an upper side of the pressure-receiving member, the displaceable portion is located such that it is concealed by the pressure-receiving member and therefore not visible (as explained above, Gocho’s displaceable portion is at least a partial portion of element 11 that is entirely contained within the pressure receiving member 12 and fixing terminal 32 when viewed in a direction normal to package substrate 30), and
wherein a length of the fixing terminal is substantially equal to a length of the pressure receiving member (as broadly recited).
If Applicant argues that Gocho does not teach wherein a length of the fixing terminal is substantially equal to a length of the pressure receiving member,
it has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, there is no persuasive evidence of record to show that a device having the claimed relative dimensions would perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Gocho such that a length of the fixing terminal is substantially equal to a length of the pressure receiving member since such a modification would be a mere change in dimensions for the predictable result that force is still successfully sensed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gocho in view of Vaganov et al. (US 20070264743 A1, hereinafter Vaganov).
As to claim 5, Gocho teaches wherein the fixing terminal 32 is comprised of a metal material that is solderable (¶24 teaches that terminal 32 is a soldering terminal, meaning it is made of metal).
If Applicant argues that the fixing terminal 32 is not comprised of metal,
Vaganov teaches mounting terminals 22 (¶61) that can be configured as pads with metallization (i.e. metal - ¶61 and fig. 5; it is noted that ¶61 teaches that elements 22 can be configured as pads even though fig. 5 shows them in the shape of balls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Gocho such that the fixing terminal is a pad with metallization, as taught by Vaganov, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing a mounting terminal for another for the predictable result that the sensor is still successfully mounted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 5-6 that “Claims 1 and 6, as amended, now recite, inter alia, "wherein when seen in the normal direction, the pressure-receiving member is wider than both the displaceable portion and a region over which the plurality of piezoelectric resistors are arranged." Applicant submits that Gocho fails to teach or suggest this limitation.
In Gocho, as shown in Figures 1 and 3, the pressure-receiving portion 12 is smaller than both the displacement portion 11 and the region where the piezoresistive elements 13 are arranged.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner did not state that all of part 11 is the displaceable portion. The Examiner stated “Gocho’s displaceable portion is at least a partial portion of element 11 that is entirely contained within the pressure receiving member 12 and fixing terminal 32 when viewed in a direction normal to package substrate 30.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the region where the piezoresistive elements…are arranged”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 1 and 6 recite “wherein when seen in the normal direction, the pressure-receiving member is wider than…a region over which the plurality of piezoelectric resistors are arranged.” Accordingly, the region is not positively recited as part of the claimed force sensor and could be part of a table surface over which the force sensor is arranged, wherein the pressure-receiving member is wider than the region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights