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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-12 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “a person skill in the art understands shunt-mode FSRs to be arrangements in which inlet electrodes and outlet electrodes are arranged on the same substrate, whereas in thru-mode FSRs inlet electrode and outlet electrodes are arranged on different substrates”, the examiner respectfully submits that this description does not explain the phrase “the sensor combines a thru-mode design and a shunt-mode design”. In other the words, the claimed invention does not provide an explanation for the combination of the thru-mode and shunt-mode designs and how the combination would be different. The specification dated 04/17/2023 appears to explain that ““the plurality of first electrodes A1 are electronically separated from each other as well as separated from the second electrode A2 by the plurality of force-sensitive elements B. Thus, the design of the sensor S combines the thru-mode design and the shunt-mode design” (see paragraph section [0029]).
\
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 3-4, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the currently amended claim recites that “the sensor combines a thru-mode design and a shunt-mode design” without explaining the result of the combination. The specification dated 04/17/2023 states that ““the plurality of first electrodes A1 are electronically separated from each other as well as separated from the second electrode A2 by the plurality of force-sensitive elements B. Thus, the design of the sensor S combines the thru-mode design and the shunt-mode design” (see paragraph section [0029]). For examination purposes, the combination would be understood as when the electrodes are separated from one another. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the method steps of providing, printing, positioning, assembling, and cutting without disclosing the devices for performing the method steps. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the devices for performing the method steps of providing, printing, positioning, assembling, and cutting. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 3-4 and 7-9 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hou (Pat. No. US 9,766,140) (hereafter Hou).
Regarding claim 2, Hou teaches a sensor comprising:
a first substrate and a second substrate arranged in a planar manner at a vertical distance from each other, wherein inner sides of the first substrate and the second substrate face each other (i.e., top substrate 211 and bottom substrate 212) (see Fig. 11);
a plurality of first electrodes disposed apart from each other at a first distance on the inner side of the first substrate (i.e., bottom left inner electrode 241 and bottom right inner electrode 242) (see Fig. 11);
a second electrode arranged entirely on the inner side of the second substrate (i.e., top inner conductive pad 231) (see Fig. 11);
a plurality of force-sensitive elements arranged on the inner side of the second substrate and covering at least a part of the second electrode (i.e., bottom piezo materials 222L and 222R) (see Fig. 11),
wherein the force-sensitive elements of the second substrate are arranged in such a way that the force-sensitive elements cover the plurality of first electrodes of the first substrate upon assembly of the first substrate with the second substrate (see Fig. 11), and
wherein the plurality of first electrodes of the first substrate are in direct contact with the plurality of force-sensitive elements of the second substrate (i.e., gap 233 can be zero, and the top inner conductive pad 231 would be in in direct contact with the piezo materials 222L and 222R) (see Column 4, lines 1-43).
Regarding claim 10, Hou teaches that the first distance between the plurality of first electrodes is such that the plurality of force-sensitive elements are spaced apart from each other (i.e., bottom piezo materials 222L and 222R are spaced apart from each other) (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Hou teaches that the plurality of first electrodes are disposed substantially parallel to each other, at an angle to each other or using other geometries (i.e., bottom electrodes 241 and 242 are arranged side-by-side) (see Fig. 11).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou (Pat. No. US 9,766,140) (hereafter Hou) in view of DeGanello et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0350772) (hereafter DeGanello).
Regarding claim 1, Hou teaches a sensor comprising:
a first substrate and a second substrate arranged in a planar manner at a vertical distance from each other, wherein inner sides of the first substrate and the second substrate face each other (i.e., top substrate 211 and bottom substrate 212) (see Fig. 11);
a plurality of first electrodes disposed apart from each other at a first distance on the inner side of the first substrate (i.e., bottom left inner electrode 241 and bottom right inner electrode 242) (see Fig. 11);
a plurality of force-sensitive elements arranged on the inner side of the first substrate and covering at least a part of individual ones of the plurality of first electrodes (i.e., bottom piezo materials 222L and 222R) (see Fig. 11);
a second electrode arranged entirely on the inner side of the second substrate and extending across at least one of the plurality of the force-sensitive elements (i.e., top inner conductive pad 231) (see Fig. 11);
wherein the second electrode of the second substrate is in direct contact with the plurality of force-sensitive elements of the first substrate (i.e., gap 233 can be zero, and the top inner conductive pad 231 would be in in direct contact with the piezo materials 222L and 222R) (see Fig. 11),
wherein the plurality of first electrodes comprises a first set and a second set of electrodes (i.e., bottom left inner electrode 241 and bottom right inner electrode 242) (see Fig. 9),
wherein the plurality of force-sensitive elements, the plurality of first electrodes and the second electrode define the vertical distance between the first substrate and the second substrate (i.e., gap 233 can be zero, and the top inner conductive pad 231 would be in in direct contact with the piezo materials 222L and 222R) (see Column 4, lines 1-43); but does not explicitly teach that the electrodes are arranged in an alternating manner.
Regarding the arrangement of the electrodes, DeGanello teaches that the plurality of first electrodes comprises a first set and a second set of electrodes wherein the first set of first electrodes and the second set of first electrodes are arranged in an alternating manner (i.e., the positive electrode 1015 is formed from interconnected linear conductive traces 1007a and the negative electrode 1017 has an arrangement of silver traces 1007b and terminates in a negative terminal 1021, with the silver traces of the negative electrode interdigitating and alternating with those of the positive electrode 1015) (see paragraph section [0103] and Fig. 7),
wherein the sensor combines a thru-mode design (i.e., conductive traces of the respective positive electrode 1015 and negative electrode 1017 and the single silver layer 1009 are separated from one another by the piezoresistive ink layers 1011 and 1013) (see Fig. 5) and a shunt-mode design, wherein one of the first set of first electrodes and the second set of first electrodes is configured to act as inlet electrodes and the other one of the first set of first electrodes and the second set of first electrodes is configured to act as outlet electrodes (i.e., resistance is measured between the positive terminal 1019 and negative terminal 1021. Electron flow between adjacent electrodes occurs via the silver layer 1009, with direct current flow between adjacent conductive traces being negligible (or even prevented) due to the use of the high aspect ratio carbon nanoparticle-based ink and the spacing of the traces. More specifically, as shown in FIG. 8, electrons flow between adjacent traces by flowing “up” through the piezoresistive material, across the silver layer 1009 and “down” through the piezoresistive material) (see paragraph section [0103] and [0104]). In view of the teaching of DeGanello, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed interdigitated electrodes in order to improve sensitivity and the dynamic range of the device.
Regarding claim 3, Hou teaches that the first distance between the plurality of first electrodes is such that the plurality of force-sensitive elements are spaced apart from each other (i.e., bottom piezo materials 222L and 222R are spaced apart from each other) (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 4, Hou teaches that the plurality of first electrodes are disposed substantially parallel to each other, at an angle to each other or using other geometries (i.e., bottom electrodes 241 and 242 are arranged side-by-side) (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 8, Hou as modified by DeGanello as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach a method for measuring a force applied to the sensor of claim 1, the method comprising:
applying a voltage to cause an electric current to flow from a first set of a plurality of first electrodes in a direction substantially perpendicular to a top surface of said first set of the plurality of first electrodes through a first set of a plurality of force-sensitive elements to a second electrode, across the second electrode, and through a second set of the plurality of force- sensitive elements to a second set of the plurality of first electrodes in a direction which is substantially perpendicular to a top surface of said second set of the plurality of first electrodes (i.e., resistance is measured between the positive terminal 1019 and negative terminal 1021. Electron flow between adjacent electrodes occurs via the silver layer 1009, with direct current flow between adjacent conductive traces being negligible (or even prevented) due to the use of the high aspect ratio carbon nanoparticle-based ink and the spacing of the traces. More specifically, as shown in FIG. 8, electrons flow between adjacent traces by flowing “up” through the piezoresistive material, across the silver layer 1009 and “down” through the piezoresistive material) (see paragraph section [0103] and [0104]);
applying the force to the sensor and thus changing an electrical resistance of the first set of the plurality of force-sensitive elements of the sensor and the second set of the plurality of force-sensitive elements of the sensor (i.e., the applied force at a specific location of the device to be measured, because the resistance measured between a trace of the upper conductive layer and a trace of the lower conductive layer is determined by the amount of force applied at the point where those traces overlap) (see paragraph section [0098]);
determining, using an electrical measuring device, a change of electrical resistance of the sensor and thereby determining the amount of the applied force (i.e., multimeter) (see paragraph section [0107]). In view of the teaching of DeGanello, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a multimeter in order to measure the force applied to the device.
Regarding claim 9, DeGenello teaches that the determination of the change of electrical resistance of the sensor is obtained by one of a determination of a current-change or determination of a change of electrical resistance measured by a measuring device (i.e., the applied force at a specific location of the device to be measured, because the resistance measured between a trace of the upper conductive layer and a trace of the lower conductive layer is determined by the amount of force applied at the point where those traces overlap) (see paragraph section [0098]). In view of the teaching of DeGanello, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a multimeter in order to measure the force applied to the device.
Regarding claim 12, Hou as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the plurality of first electrodes comprises a first set and a second set of electrodes wherein the first set of first electrodes and the second set of first electrodes is arranged in an alternating manner. However, DeGanello teaches that the plurality of first electrodes comprises a first set and a second set of electrodes wherein the first set of first electrodes and the second set of first electrodes is arranged in an alternating manner (i.e., the positive electrode 1015 is formed from interconnected linear conductive traces 1007a and the negative electrode 1017 has an arrangement of silver traces 1007b and terminates in a negative terminal 1021, with the silver traces of the negative electrode interdigitating and alternating with those of the positive electrode 1015) (see paragraph section [0103] and Fig. 7). In view of the teaching of DeGanello, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed interdigitated electrodes in order to improve sensitivity and the dynamic range of the device.
Regarding claim 14, Hou as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the plurality of first electrodes comprises a first set and a second set of electrodes wherein the first set of first electrodes and the second set of first electrodes is arranged in an alternating manner. However, DeGanello teaches that the plurality of first electrodes comprises a first set and a second set of electrodes wherein the first set of first electrodes and the second set of first electrodes is arranged in an alternating manner (i.e., the positive electrode 1015 is formed from interconnected linear conductive traces 1007a and the negative electrode 1017 has an arrangement of silver traces 1007b and terminates in a negative terminal 1021, with the silver traces of the negative electrode interdigitating and alternating with those of the positive electrode 1015) (see paragraph section [0103] and Fig. 7). In view of the teaching of DeGanello, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed interdigitated electrodes in order to improve sensitivity and the dynamic range of the device.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou (Pat. No. US 9,766,140) (hereafter Hou) in view of DeGanello et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0350772) (hereafter DeGanello) and in further view of Serban et al. (Pat. No. US 6,531,951) (hereafter Serban)
Regarding claim 6, Hou teaches a method for manufacturing the sensor of claim 1 (Examiner’s note: the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself because product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps but only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113)), the method comprises:
providing a first substrate and a second substrate (i.e., top substrate 211 and bottom substrate 212) (see Fig. 11);
printing of a first set of first electrodes and a second set of first electrodes on the first substrate (i.e., bottom left inner electrode 241 and bottom right inner electrode 242) (see Fig. 9);
printing a second electrode entirely on the second substrate (i.e., top inner conductive pad 231) (see Fig. 11);
printing a plurality of force-sensitive elements on at least one of the second electrode or the first set of first electrodes and on the second set of first electrodes (i.e., bottom piezo materials 222L and 222R) (see Fig. 11);
positioning the first substrate onto the second substrate substantially aligned such that the first electrode is oriented towards the second electrode to obtain the sensor (see Fig. 11); but does not explicitly teach that the substrates are provided on a common substrate.
Regarding the substrates, Serban teaches that the first substrate and the second substrate are provided on a common substrate, further comprising:
assembling by folding the substrate such that the first substrate and the second substrate are substantially aligned (i.e., the sensor is assembled by folding the two zones together along a line of separation of the two adjacent zones) (see Column 6, lines 1-62); and
cutting the folded substrate to obtain the sensor (i.e., the finished detector is cut from this sandwich and the supporting sheet may be cut along the line of separation before folding of one zone on the other) (see Column 6, lines 1-62). In view of the teaching of Serban, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a common substrate in order to reduce manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 7, Hou teaches that an isolation material is provided on a part of the first set of first electrodes and the second set of first electrodes, which is not covered by the plurality of force-sensitive elements (i.e., ring spacer 26) (see Fig. 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Patrick Assouad can be reached on (571)-272-2210. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights