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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed December 6, 2022.
This application is also a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371 for PCT international application number PCT/NL2021/050374 filed June 14, 2021 and published December 23, 2021 as PCT publication no. WO 2021256921 A1.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as June 14, 2020, the date of the earliest priority application (United States provisional patent application serial number 63/038,892) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the provisional application.
The same is similarly true for the following United States provisional, non-provisional, or international PCT patent application(s):
PCT international application number PCT/NL2021/050374 filed June 14, 2021.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as December 6, 2022, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s) or the application(s) listed below.
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s) (some redundancy may be present):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
EP
21735428
06/14/2021
EP 4165383 A1
EP 4165383 B1
04/19/2023
04/15/2026
NL
PCT/NL2021/050374
06/14/2021
WO 2021256921 A1
12/23/2021
JP
2022577092
06/14/2021
JP 2023529500 A
JP 7762171 B2
07/10/2023
10/29/2025
CN
202180043071
06/14/2021
CN 115867776 A
CN 115867776 B
03/28/2023
11/07/2025
The claims filed June 17, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1 & 8
1-9, & 11-15
Cancelled:
none
6
Withdrawn:
none
none
Added:
none
none
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claims 1 and 8 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a final action and is the fifth action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
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 June 17, 2026 has been entered.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190064012 of van den Boom et al. (van den Boom, cited by Applicant) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4990769 of Hazan et al. (Hazan).
With respect to claim 1, van den Boom discloses a two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array (Figs. 1-4, abstract), comprising:
two or more row optical waveguides (102-106, ¶ 16, "FIG. 1 shows an exemplary embodiment of the invention. In this example, two or more row optical waveguides 102, 104, and 106 and two or more column optical waveguide 108, 110, and 112 are arranged in a planar array to define crossing sensors.");
two or more column optical waveguides (108-112),
wherein the two or more row optical waveguides and the two or more column optical waveguides are deformable (¶ 23, "With this configuration, both waveguides have enhanced bending, thereby further increasing the cross-coupling.") and are arranged in a planar array to define a sensor in each crosspoint of the two or more column optical waveguides and the two or more row optical waveguides (Fig. 1),
wherein each crosspoint includes one of the two or more row waveguides in contact with one of the two or more column waveguides at its intersection point (Fig. 2);
wherein each crosspoint further includes a light coupling structure (ring 114 or ring 202/402) with a layer of mechanical light scattering material (inherent (as in the prior final rejection of March 5, 2025 (“March 2025 action”)); in order to see something, it has to scatter light. Otherwise, it’s invisible.) and a layer of rigid material aligned therewith (one or either of source electronics 118 and detection electronics 116 as both are seen as sources of rigid material to which the light coupling structures of van den Boom are aligned, among others; ¶ 16),
said light coupling structure being configured to enhance waveguide bending when pressure is applied to each crosspoint (seen as so configured - same product/same features, see below. Also, ¶ 16, "Each crossing sensor further includes a mechanical structure configured to enhance waveguide bending when pressure is applied to the crossing sensor. In the example of FIG. 1, these mechanical structures are rigid rings 114a, 114b, 114c, 114d, 114e, 114f, 114g, 114h, and 114i.");
wherein the layer of mechanical light scattering material is made of a layer of deformable material (no material is infinitely elastic/deformable or rigid. Even diamond bends slightly as its modulus of elasticity is not infinite.), and is disposed at each crosspoint in contact with at least one of the row or column optical waveguide (this has to happen for waveguide bending to occur; see Figs. 1, 2, and 3B); and
wherein the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array is configured to sense pressure by providing light to the row optical waveguides and measuring light coupled at each crosspoint to its column optical waveguide, or vice versa (seen as so configured; same product/same features as set forth herein. Also, ¶ 19, "The optical coupling between the waveguides at the crossing sensors is a function of the local pressure, so by detecting the optical power received, the pressure on a crossing sensor can be measured."), and
wherein light coupled to a column optical waveguide is dependent on pressure applied to each crosspoint acting as a sensor (¶ 19, “The optical coupling between the waveguides at the crossing sensors is a function of the local pressure, so by detecting the optical power received, the pressure on a crossing sensor can be measured.").
For product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties and/or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Consequently, because van den Boom as set forth above provides the claimed structure of claim 1, the combination is seen as also providing the same claimed properties or functions of claim 1.
Unsupported features are seen to directly result from the supported/claimed structures. No authority is known by which unsupported or “naked” functions/characteristics/features can be claimed and subject to exclusive protection.
Herein, this analysis is referred to as “same product/same features”.
Van den Boom as set forth above does not disclose:
each of the layer of mechanical light scattering material and the layer of rigid material having a shape of a patch of the same size,
is disposed [[at]]between each crosspoint and the layer of rigid material, the layer of mechanical light scattering material being in contact with at least one of the row or column optical waveguide;
Hazan discloses a continuous cable fiber optical pressure sensor that includes:
a pressure sensor (FIG. 8) that uses mechanical structures (21, 22) having the shape of a patch having a closed structure in order to bend or deform an optical waveguide (20).
See col. 6, lines 1-29 of Hazan.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an additional pressure-distribution element along the lines of Hazan in a system according to van den Boom as set forth above in order to provide and distribute pressure over an area. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Hazan also provides for aligned elements of the same size and would equally be as obvious to include in a system for regular and reliable pattern structures for haptic/manual engagement.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optically-based pressure sensor) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
each of the layer of mechanical light scattering material and the layer of rigid material having a shape of a patch of the same size,
is disposed [[at]]between each crosspoint and the layer of rigid material, the layer of mechanical light scattering material being in contact with at least one of the row or column optical waveguide;
The foregoing obviousness analysis is referred to in summary fashion in the rejections below.
With respect to claim 2, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 1, including one wherein
the light coupling structure (114/202) comprises two layers of light scattering material disposed in contact with and on both sides of the row and column optical waveguides wherein the row and column optical waveguides are vertically disposed between the two layers of light scattering material.
As seen in FIG. 4 of van den Boom, the light coupling structure (114/202) may comprise two layers (202, 402) of light scattering material disposed in contact with and on both sides of the row and column optical waveguides (108-112, 204, 206) wherein the row and column optical waveguides (108-112, 204, 206) are vertically disposed between the two layers (202, 402) of light scattering material.
With respect to claim 3, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 2, including one wherein
the two layers of light scattering material are substantially of same size and shape, and
are substantially laterally aligned.
As seen in FIG. 4 of van den Boom, the two layers (202, 402) of light scattering material are substantially of the same size and shape, and are substantially laterally aligned.
With respect to claim 4, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 1, including one wherein
each row optical waveguide includes a waveguide core surrounded by a waveguide cladding,
wherein each column optical waveguide includes a waveguide core surrounded by a waveguide cladding,
wherein the waveguide claddings of both the row optical waveguides and the column optical waveguides are arranged for light transmissive contact at one or more of the sensors.
As mentioned in ¶¶ [0028]-[0030] of van den Boom, each row optical waveguide includes a waveguide core surrounded by a waveguide cladding, wherein each column optical waveguide includes a waveguide core surrounded by a waveguide cladding, wherein the waveguide claddings of both the row optical waveguides (102-106) and the column optical waveguides (108-112) are arranged for light transmissive contact at one or more of the crossing sensors.
Per ¶ 30, "One of the main points of this work is that sufficient waveguide cross-coupling can be obtained via waveguide bending even for waveguide crossings where the waveguide cladding is intact."
With respect to claim 5, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 1, including one wherein
each row optical waveguide includes a waveguide core surrounded by a waveguide cladding (per typical fiber optic construction, ¶ 25); and
wherein each column optical waveguide includes a waveguide core surrounded by a waveguide cladding (per typical fiber optic construction, ¶ 25).
Van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above does not disclose explicitly:
wherein a ratio of a cross sectional diameter of the waveguide core with respect to the waveguide cladding is at least 50:
However, van den Boom discloses all ratios between infinity(∞):1 and whatever the default ratio is between core and cladding. Generally, seen as 8 or 9 µm to 125 µm.
As indicated previously in the last action, as mentioned in ¶¶ [0028]-[0030] of van den Boom, each row optical waveguide includes a waveguide core surrounded by a waveguide cladding, wherein each column optical waveguide includes a waveguide core surrounded by a waveguide cladding. Thus, van den Boom in view of Hazan only differs from claim 5 in that van den Boom does not teach wherein the ratio of the cross sectional diameter of the waveguide core with respect to the waveguide cladding is at least 50:1.
Van den Boom does teach, however, that “partial or complete removal of the cladding can increase the cross-coupling provided by the crossing sensor under pressure”. Complete removal of the cladding would give the infinite ratio indicated above.
It would have been easily apparent to one of ordinary skill that a “partial or complete removal of the cladding” in van den Boom could have been achieved by increasing the ratio of the cross sectional diameter of the waveguide core with respect to the waveguide cladding, i.e., by making the cladding thinner. In order to increase the cross-coupling provided by the crossing sensor under pressure, van den Boom in view of Hazan would have been modified so that the ratio of the cross sectional diameter of the waveguide core with respect to the waveguide cladding is at least 50:1, and/or even more, thereby obtaining the invention specified by claim 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the invention specified by claim 5 in view of van den Boom combined with Hazan.
As such, the combination would then provide:
wherein the ratio of the cross sectional diameter of the waveguide core with respect to the waveguide cladding is at least 50:1
In so doing, combining prior art elements according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optically-based pressure sensor) would occur. MPEP § 2141(III).
With respect to claim 7, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 1, including one wherein
the layer of deformable material comprises the layer of mechanical light scattering material (per claim 1, all materials are seen to scatter light),
the layer of mechanical light scattering material demonstrating micro-bending of the at least one of the row or column optical waveguide (van den Boom, Fig. 3B).
With respect to claim 9, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 1, including one wherein
the light coupling structure (114/202) further comprises a layer of rigid material.
The light coupling structure (114/202) of van den Boom is seen as sufficiently rigid to bend the adjoining/adjacent optical fibers (204/206).
With respect to claim 12, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 1, including one wherein
the light coupling structure (114/202) is shaped according to one of the group of
circular, oval, rectangular, square, and polygon shaped,
wherein light coupling structures, each provided at a respective crosspoint, have various or corresponding sizes.
As seen in FIG. 8 of Hazan, the mechanical structures (plates 21, 22 of Fig. 8) are shaped according to a square or rectangular. The light coupling structure (114/202) of van den Boom would have also been shaped according to a square or rectangular for the same reasons mentioned with respect to claim 1.
As seen in FIG. 1 of van den Boom, the light coupling structures (114/202) are each provided at a respective crosspoint and have sizes corresponding to the structures (114/202) themselves or corresponding to said crosspoints.
With respect to claim 13, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 1, including one wherein
wherein a deformable material is arranged in a center of said closed structure.
After the light coupling structure (114/202) of van den Boom is modified to have the same shape as the mechanical structures (21, 22) of Hazan, a deformable material corresponding to the material of the light coupling structure (114/202) itself would have been arranged in the center of the closed structure (114/202) of van den Boom of Hazan.
Such would be the material of the entire light coupling structure.
With respect to claim 14, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 1, including one wherein
the row and column optical waveguides are selected from the group consisting of:
step-index plastic fibers and graded-index plastic fibers.
Per ¶ 18 of van den Boom, the row and column optical waveguides (108-112) are selected from, but not limited to, the group consisting of: step-index plastic fibers and graded-index plastic fibers.
With respect to claim 15, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 1, including one wherein
the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array is configured as a sleep monitoring sensor arranged under a mattress for unobtrusive measuring of sleep-related movements of an individual on the mattress.
Van den Boom, ¶ 5, "E.g., by putting this structure inside or beneath a mattress, the 2-dimensional movements of a person during his sleep can be monitored while he does not experience any effects from the sensing system which may have impact on his sleep behavior.” See also ¶¶ 7 and 36.
This is also intended use.
Claim 15 requires a device constructed according to its immediate parent claim, claim 1, to be operated in a certain manner.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). MPEP § 2114(II).
Below and herein, this analysis is referred to as “intended use”. Subject matter in the claims directed to the intended use of a structure is not seen as providing a structural distinction over prior art.
Claims 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080234898 of Wiener (Wiener).
With respect to claim 8, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 7, including one wherein
the layer of rigid material is in indirect contact with each crosspoint across the layer of deformable material.
Per the rejection of claim 1, in order to distribute pressure as indicated, the Hazan mechanical structures are outside of the rings of van den Boom. As such, the crosspoints are only contacted by the Hazan rigid elements via the van den Boom rings, meeting the language of the claim.
van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above does not disclose:
the layer of deformable material comprises a silicone rubber,
Wiener discloses a system and method for sensing loads that includes using a resistance element (14) made of an elastic material in order to deform an optical fiber (12). See ¶¶ [0051] and [0056] of Wiener. Silicone rubber was a well-known elastic material before the effective filing date. In order to use an elastic material to deform the optical waveguides of van den Boom, the light coupling structure (114/202) of van den Boom in view of Hazan would have been made of silicone rubber, per the suggestion of Wiener, thereby obtaining the invention specified by claim 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the invention specified by claim 8 in view of van den Boom combined with Hazan, and further in view of Wiener.
In so doing, combining prior art elements according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optically-based pressure sensor) would occur. MPEP § 2141(III).
Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.). MPEP § 2144.07.
Consequently, the recitation of specific materials is seen as obvious.
With respect to claim 10, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 9, but not one wherein
the layer of rigid material comprises polyvinylchloride.
Wiener further teaches using a rigid material (15) in combination with his elastic material (14) in order to deform an optical fiber (12). See ¶ [0054] of Wiener. Polyvinylchloride (PVC) was a well-known rigid material before the effective filing date. In order to use both an elastic material and a rigid material to deform the optical waveguides of VAN DEN BOOM, the light coupling structure (114/202) of VAN DEN BOOM in view of Hazan would have included a rigid material such as PVC, per the suggestion of Wiener, thereby obtaining the invention specified by claim 10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the invention specified by claim 10 in view of VAN DEN BOOM combined with Hazan, and further in view of Wiener.
In so doing, combining prior art elements according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optically-based pressure sensor) would occur. MPEP § 2141(III).
With respect to claim 11, van den Boom in view of Hazan and Wiener as set forth above discloses the two-dimensional optical waveguide pressure sensor array according to claim 10, including one wherein
the light coupling structure (114/202) comprises two layers of light scattering material disposed in contact with and on both sides of the row and column optical waveguides, and
two layers of rigid material disposed in contact with and on both sides of the two layers of light scattering material,
vertically disposed between the row and column optical waveguides and the two layers of light scattering material with the two layers of rigid material.
Wiener teaches using a layer of light scattering material (14) disposed in contact with an optical waveguide (12) and a layer of rigid material (15) disposed in contact with the light scattering material (14). See ¶¶ [0051]-[0056] of Wiener. In order to use both an elastic material and a rigid material to deform the optical waveguides of van den Boom, each of the light coupling structures (202, 402) of van den Boom in view of Hazan would have been configured as a layer of elastic material in contact with a layer of light scattering material, as taught by Wiener, thereby obtaining the invention specified by claim 11. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the invention specified by claim 11 in view of van den Boom combined with Hazan, and further in view of Wiener.
In so doing, combining prior art elements according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optically-based pressure sensor) would occur. MPEP § 2141(III).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the claim rejections are not rebutted.
Applicant argues that:
Specifically, amended claim 1 now clarifies that both the layer of mechanical light scattering material and the layer of rigid material are in a shape of a patch. Whether or not Hazan teaches a patch shape, both Hazan and van den Boom fail to teach a rigid layer in a shape of the patch. Further, whether or not van den Boom vaguely mentions "other constructions which realize bending at waveguide crossing may also be possible," it would not be obvious to use a patch shape, or any closed shape for the light coupling structure based on the description of van den Boom. That is at least because a ring shape, specifically a ring shape with a hole laterally enclosing the crosspoint, is the main point of the invention of van den Boom.
Examiner response: Applicant presumes some well-established meaning to the phrase “patch-shaped”. Examiner does not see this and believed that any shape can form a patch.
Further, changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant [in a patentable way, i.e., unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like per below, and not arbitrary and/or happenstance]. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). This is particularly true when the specification gives little or no description of why such changes in shape are unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like. No disclosure is given in the application with regards to the patentable significance of the patch shape, what it is, or what is or is not patch-shaped.
Herein, this point is referred to as “changes in shape”.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the rigid light coupling structure of van den Boom was modified to have a solid shape (e.g., a patch), which Applicant respectfully disputes as explained above, because van den Boom lacks a deformable layer between the rigid layer and the optical waveguides, the rigid layer would be applying constant, rather even pressure on the waveguide, which would cause permanent bending and constant optical coupling. As a result, the sensor would not be able to distinguish between pressed and unpressed states, leading the pressure-dependent sensing mechanism defeated.
Examiner response: It’s the combination of van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above that provides the layered elements with the crosspoint at the base, the middle layer from van den Boom and the top layer from Hazan.
Further, no evidence is shown for Applicant’s conclusion that the combination would not work. Attorney argument is not evidence. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
In fact, FIG. 6 of van den Boom compares ring shape versus no ring shape, teaching that the "results clearly show the effect of fiber bending at fiber crossings as enhanced by the rings. It is also apparent that cross coupling is greatly reduced when no rings are present" (see paragraph [0026] of van den Boom). Thus, any shape without a ring, such as a patch shape as required by the pending application, is clearly undesired by van den Boom. Put another way, based on the results shown in van den Boom, one would have no motivation to use a patch shape, or any shape with a solid, continuous surface, as the light coupling structure, because such modification would destroy the purpose of van den Boom. Thus, van den Boom fails to teach a patch-shaped rigid layer. Further, a patch-shaped rigid layer is not obvious in view of van den Boom.
Examiner response: Simply because a non-preferred embodiment is used in a rejection, that does not remove it from the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The reference is still valid, if not preferred. Enhancement or reduction of performance neither teaches away nor removes the subject matter from the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
MPEP § 2123.
In addition to the ring shape being distinct from the patch shape as required by amended claim 1, this distinction also comes with other deficiencies. As explained in the subject application, although the addition of the ring shaped elements may enhance waveguide bending and thereby improve transfer characteristics, it also has the disadvantages of adding complexity due to the required precise alignment of each ring with the intersections of the fibers. Thus, even if combined, van den Boom and Hazan would teach a light coupling structure with a layer of rigid ring and a layer of deformable material, which would still suffer from the disadvantage of required precise alignment of each ring with the crosspoint of the fibers.
Examiner response: The teachings of Hazan complement those of van den Boom. It is not necessary to achieve optimum performance from a device for patent purposes. What is claimed must go beyond that which would be known by the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As shown in the rejections, van den Boom in view of Hazan as set forth above reads upon all the claims.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20230221194 A1 published July 13, 2023 was previously cited.
No new art is cited.
This is a request for continued examination/RCE of the current application . All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee 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 ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights