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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS's) submitted on March 21, 2023, September 24, 2024, November 10, 2025 are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 21, 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2).
As per claim 1 (and analogously, as per claim 11), Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2) discloses a piezoelectric device (e.g., see, inter alia, Figs. 2, 13) comprising: a first piezoelectric sensor (e.g., 1503) including a first inner conductor(e.g., 301) extending in a first direction (e.g., the left-to-right direction, or vice versa, as depicted in Figs. 2, 13) , a first piezoelectric body (e.g., 302) covering at least a part of the first inner conductor (301), and a first outer conductor (e.g., 303) disposed at an outer periphery of the first piezoelectric body (e.g., 302), the first piezoelectric sensor (1503) generating a first voltage in the first inner conductor (301) with respect to the first outer conductor (303) according to displacement of the first piezoelectric body (302) due to an external force when the external force acts on the first piezoelectric body (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0059]); a second piezoelectric sensor (e.g., 1505) including a second inner conductor (e.g., its corresponding conductive core (301)) extending in a second direction (e.g. same as the first direction above), a second piezoelectric body (e.g., its corresponding insulative layer (302) formed of P(VDF-TrFE) copolymer piezoelectric material) covering at least a part of the second inner conductor (301), and a second outer conductor (e.g., its corresponding electrically conductive layer (303)) disposed at an outer periphery of the second piezoelectric body (302), the second piezoelectric sensor (1505) generating a second voltage having a voltage different in polarity from the first voltage in the second inner conductor (301) with respect to the second outer conductor (303) according to displacement of the second piezoelectric body (302) due to the external force when the external force acts on the second piezoelectric body (302) (see, inter alia, paragraph [0059]); and a differential signal forming unit (e.g., differential amplifier or an instrumentation amplifier may process this differential voltage) including one differential input terminal to which the first inner conductor is electrically connected and another differential input terminal to which the second inner conductor is electrically connected, the differential signal forming unit forming a differential signal based on a first signal input to the one differential input terminal and a second signal input to the other differential input terminal. See, inter alia, paragraph [0074], stating in part "In cross section 1500, the arrows represent polarization, with one cable 1503 polarized inward and one cable 1505 polarized outward. Cables 1503 and 1505 are a differential pair used in parallel. Stress (e.g. from sound) on cables 1503 and 1505 may cause charges to flow oppositely in each cable. In one embodiment, charges flowing oppositely do not cancel each other as a signal processor can take one signal and invert or reverse it, electronically. A typical circuit with a differential amplifier or an instrumentation amplifier may process this differential voltage. Either circuit has one inverting and one non-inverting input. The output may be proportional to the difference between two inputs."
Analogously, as per claim 11, an instrumentation amplifier (see above, as cited with regard to the differential amplifier as set forth in paragraph [0074]) including one differential input terminal to which the first inner conductor is electrically connected, another differential input terminal to which the second inner conductor is electrically connected, and a reference terminal (e.g., the ground connected to each corresponding terminal, which is consisted to be at the same potential, and such that the terminals are connected to each other via the common ground potential) electrically connected to each of the first outer conductor and the second outer conductor. See, inter alia, paragraphs [0025, 0059, 0061, 0075].
As per claim 2, wherein the differential signal forming unit includes a differential amplifier circuit. See, inter alia, paragraphs [0074].
As per claim 3, wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially parallel. See, inter alia, Figs. 2, 13, 15, 23C, 32, etc.
As per claim 4, wherein the first outer conductor and the second outer conductor are in physical contact with each other. That is, Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2) (paragraph [0078], fig. 15) describes a sensor, comprising: a cable (1200) having a conductive core (1202), an outer cover (1204) made of P (VDF-TrFE), and a conductive coating (1244); and a cable (1210) having a conductive core (1212), an outer cover (1214) made of P (VDF-TrFE), and a conductive coating (1244); wherein the conductive coating (1244) of the cable (1200) and the conductive coating (1244) of the cable (1210) lie in contact.
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.
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 5-8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0003905 A1).
See the description of Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2), supra.
As per claim 5, Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2) remains silent with regard to wherein: the first piezoelectric body is formed by spirally winding an elongated organic piezoelectric body including an organic piezoelectric material having a piezoelectric constant d14 in a first spiral direction toward the first direction, and the second piezoelectric body is formed by spirally winding the elongated organic piezoelectric body in a second spiral direction different from the first spiral direction toward the second direction.
As per claim 6, Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2) remains silent with regard to wherein the organic piezoelectric material contains a helical chiral polymer having optical activity.
As per claim 7, Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2) remains silent with regard to wherein the helical chiral polymer contains polylactic acid.
As per claim 8, Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2) remains silent with regard to wherein the organic piezoelectric material contains long fibers composed of an optically active polypeptide.
As per claim 12, Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2) remains silent with regard to explicitly providing a force sensor comprising the piezoelectric device according to claim 1.
As per claim 13, Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2) remains silent with regard to explicitly providing a biological information acquisition device comprising the piezoelectric device according to claim 1.
Such features as set forth in claims 5-8, and uses as per claims 12 and 13, are known in the art.
As just one example, as per claims 5-8, Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0003905 A1) discloses an analogous piezoelectric device, in the same field of endeavor as Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2), wherein Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0003905 A1) (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0073]) indicates that "examples of the helical chiral polymer (A) include, for example, polypeptides, ... , polylactic acid polymers, etc.", and therefore a configuration comprising a polylactic acid polymer or a polypeptide can be adopted for the helical chiral polymer (A).
Accordingly, Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0003905 A1) (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0016], [0050] and [0073], fig. 2) describes a piezoelectric base material comprising:
a first piezoelectric body (14A) which has a chirality of a helical chiral polymer (A) comprising a polylactic acid polymer or polypeptide that generates an electrical field as a result of a piezoelectric constant (d14), and which is wound helically in one direction along an outer circumferential surface of an internal conductor (12A); and a second piezoelectric body (14B) which has a chirality of a helical chiral polymer (A) and which is wound helically in the opposite direction to the winding direction of the first piezoelectric body (14A), along the outer circumferential surface of the first piezoelectric body (14A); wherein the piezoelectric base body has excellent piezoelectric sensitivity and piezoelectric output stability.
Furthermore, the invention described in Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2) and the invention described in Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0003905 A1) are both related to the technical field of piezoelectric base materials about which a piezoelectric body is wound and both address the problem of improving reliability.
Moreover, as per claims 12 and 13, Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0003905 A1) discloses utilization of the piezoelectric device as being a force sensor (claim 12) and/or a biological information acquisition device (claim 13). See paragraph [0015] of Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0003905 A1)
Accordingly, given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0003905 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of claims 5-8, 12, and 13 to the teachings of Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2), in order to advantageously adopt the piezoelectric base material of the invention disclosed in Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0003905 A1) which is provided with a first piezoelectric body which has a chirality of a helical chiral polymer (A) comprising a polylactic acid polymer or polypeptide that generates an electrical field as a result of a piezoelectric constant (d14), and which is wound helically in one direction, and a second piezoelectric body which has a chirality of a helical chiral polymer (A) and which is wound helically in the opposite direction to the winding direction of the first piezoelectric body, in place of the pair of cables having an insulating layer made of conductive P (VDF-TrFE) of the invention disclosed in Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2), and thereby provide "excellent piezoelectric sensitivity and also has the excellent stability of a piezoelectric output" with utilization as a conventional force sensor and/or biological information acquisition device, as expressly taught and suggested by Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2) - see paragraph of Fishman et al. (WO 2019/126477 A2)..
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are tentatively objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but, pending an updated search, amendments or arguments presented by the Applicant and considered by the Examiner in reply to this office communication, would be favorably considered if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein piezoelectric devices include coaxial sensors and/or differential sensors in order to reduce electromagnetic noise.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688