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 .
Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on 12/04/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “Serban does not discloses [sic] the specific structural arrangement required by pending claim 2” because “the second support 14 carries only a contact element 26, which is spaced from the electrodes and their coating by a separator 16 and is brought into contact with the coatings 28, 30 only when a force is applied”, the examiner respectfully submits that the currently amended claim 2, as written, does not preclude the direct contact between the layers 28, 30 and the electrode 26 “only when a force is applied”.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the currently amended claim 2 requires “upon assembly, these force-sensitive elements on the second substrate cover the plurality of first electrodes on the first substrate such that the first electrodes are in direct contact with the plurality of force-sensitive elements of the second substrate”, the examiner disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that the currently amended claim 2 actually states that “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”, 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”. Claim 2, as presented, does not actually require that “upon assembly, these force-sensitive elements on the second substrate cover the plurality of first electrodes on the first substrate such that the first electrodes are in direct contact with the plurality of force-sensitive elements of the second substrate” as asserted by the applicant. In this case, since the claim defines the phrase “the force-sensitive elements of the second substrate” as “a plurality of force-sensitive elements arranged on the inner side of the second substrate” and the phrase “the inner side of the second substrate” as facing “an inner side of the first substrate”, the phrase “the force-sensitive elements of the second substrate” is understood to be the force-sensitive elements arranged at the interior where the respective inner sides of the respective substrates face each other.
The specification discloses that “the first substrate C1 with the plurality of first electrodes A1 and the plurality of force-sensitive elements B can be manufactured separate from the second substrate with the second electrode A2” and that “another aspect of the sensor in which the force-sensitive element B can be printed on the first electrodes A1 on the first substrate C1 as well as on the second electrode A2 on the second substrate C2” so that “the force-sensitive element B covers entirely the second electrode A2 on the second substrate C2” (see paragraph sections [0036]-[0037] of the specification dated 04/17/2023). On the other hand, claim 2, as presented, does not require that the force-sensitive elements be directly printed, deposited, or formed on an inner surface of the second substrate so as to cover the entirely of the second electrode on the inner surface of the second substrate. As written, the force-sensitive element of claim 2 can be understood as covering the second electrode by overlapping the second electrode and coming into contact with the second electrode when a force is applied.
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “Serban dies [sic] not disclose a second electrode on the second support that is covered by force-sensitive material on that support” because the element 26’s “function is to bridge between coatings 28 and 30 when the sheets are pressed together, not as an electrode over which force-sensitive elements are formed”. The examiner respectfully submits that the claim 2, as presented, does not disclose a second electrode “over which force-sensitive elements are formed.” The examiner respectfully submits that the phrases “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” and “an electrode over which force-sensitive elements are formed” are not equivalent.
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “Serban thus teaches away from adopting fine-pitch electrode structure”, the examiner respectfully submits that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” and that “preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments” (see MPEP 2123). In this case, in its disclosure, Serban acknowledges the “version with fingers” (see Column 5, lines 25-36).
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “even in a product-by-process context […] Serban does not teach the structure consequences implied by the claim: a second electrode printed over a substantial portion, a plurality of force-sensitive elements as claimed, or a sensor produced by folding a common substrate containing both electrode sets”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that Serban teaches printing a second electrode extensively on the second substrate (i.e., The second supporting sheet 14 is provided with a contact element 26 made of a conducting material. It may, for example, be simply a layer of graphite or of metal which is printed, laminated or engraved on the second support 14) (see Column 6, lines 1-62); 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., the pressure-sensitive layers are then printed on the electrodes at appropriate places) (see Column 6, lines 1-62); 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 (i.e., the two supporting sheets are then assembled while adjusting their relative positions so that the contact elements on the second support are exactly opposite the electrodes and pressure-sensitive layers on the first support) (see Column 6, lines 1-62); and 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).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a change of electrical resistance of measured by a measuring device” should be corrected to --a change of electrical resistance measured by a measuring device—. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 6-7, and 10-11 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 claims 2 and 6, currently amended claim 2 recites “a second electrode arranged over a substantial portion of the inner side of the second substrate”, while claim 6 recites “printing a second electrode extensively on the second substrate”. In the Remarks, dated 12/04/2025, the applicant states that “claims 2 and 6 have been amended in that to clarify the term “extensively” as “over a substantial portion”” and that “this clarification is derived from the description and the figures”. In this case, only claim 2 appears to include such amendment, while claim 6 is designed as “currently amended”, there is no visible amended text in the claim. Furthermore, it does not appear that the phrase “over a substantial portion” is “derived from the description and the figures”. The examiner respectfully submits that the specification actually discloses that “the force-sensitive element B can be printed on the first electrodes A1 on the first substrate C1 as well as on the second electrode A2 on the second substrate C2” so that “the force-sensitive element B covers entirely the second electrode A2 on the second substrate C2” (see paragraph sections [0036]-[0037] of the specification dated 04/17/2023). The specification does not appear to disclose “extensively” as “over a substantial portion” at all in this case. Instead, the specification directly teaches that “the force-sensitive element B covers entirely the second electrode A2 on the second substrate C2”. Should the applicant wish recite the claims more broadly, the support from the specification for the broader version of the invention would have to be highlighted. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “printing a second electrode extensively on the second substrate” is indefinite because the term “extensively” is a relative term. The term “extensively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, “printing a second electrode extensively on the second substrate” could mean to deposit as much or as little material on the second substrate. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 7 and 10-11 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 Serban et al. (Pat. No. US 6,531,951) (hereafter Serban).
Regarding claim 2, Serban teaches a sensor comprising:
a first substrate (i.e., support 12) (see Fig. 1) and a second substrate (i.e., support 14) (see Fig. 1) arranged in a planar manner at a vertical distance from each other (see Fig. 1), wherein an inner side of the first substrate faces an inner side of the second substrate (i.e., the interior of the sensor where the supports 12 and 14 face each other) (see Fig. 1);
a plurality of first electrodes disposed apart from each other at a first distance on the inner side of the first substrate (i.e., electrodes 22 and 24) (see Fig. 1);
a second electrode arranged over a substantial portion of the inner side of the second substrate (i.e., conducting element 26) (see Fig. 1);
a plurality of force-sensitive elements (i.e., layer 28 and 30 overlap part of the conducting element 26) (see Fig. 1) arranged on the inner side of the second substrate (i.e., layers 28 and 30 are arranged on the inner side of the conducting element 26 facing the inner side of the support 12) (see Fig. 1) and covering at least a part of the second electrode (i.e., layers 28 and 30 overlap the inner side of the conducting element 26 facing the inner side of the support 12) (see Fig. 1),
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 (i.e., layer 28 and 30 of a pressure-sensitive semiconducting or resistive material overlap the inner side of the electrodes 20 and 24 facing the inner side of the conducting element 26 and the inner side of the support 14) (see Fig. 1), 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., when a force is exerted on the active zone 18 of the sensor 10, the two supporting sheets 12 and 14 are pressed together and the conducting element 26 is put into contact with the coatings 28 and 30 of the two electrodes) (see Column 5, lines 1-44).
Regarding claim 10, Serban 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., interstice 36) (see Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 11, Serban 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., electrodes 22 and 24 in the form of simple conducting lines arranged along the periphery of the active zone of the sensor) (see Fig. 2b).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Serban et al. (Pat. No. US 6,531,951) (hereafter Serban) in view of Lisseman et al. (Pat. No. US 9,696,223) (hereafter Lisseman).
Regarding claim 1, Serban teaches a sensor comprising:
a first substrate (i.e., support 12) (see Fig. 1) and a second substrate (i.e., support 14) (see Fig. 1) arranged in a planar manner at a vertical distance from each other (see Fig. 1),
wherein an inner side of the first substrate faces an inner side of the second substrate (i.e., the interior of the sensor where the supports 12 and 14 face each other) (see Fig. 1);
a plurality of first electrodes disposed apart from each other at a first distance on the inner side of the first substrate (i.e., electrodes 22 and 24) (see Fig. 1);
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., layer 28 and 30 of a pressure-sensitive semiconducting or resistive material) (see Fig. 1);
a second electrode arranged on the inner side of the second substrate and extending across at least ones of the plurality of the force-sensitive elements (i.e., conducting element 26) (see Fig. 1);
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., when a force is exerted on the active zone 18 of the sensor 10, the two supporting sheets 12 and 14 are pressed together and the conducting element 26 is put into contact with the coatings 28 and 30 of the two electrodes) (see Column 5, lines 1-44),
wherein the plurality of first electrodes comprises a first set and a second set of electrodes (i.e., the electrodes may thus have a gap between them that is significantly greater than that in the version with fingers instead the dynamic range and sensitivity of the sensor can be adjusted by adding specks of silver or another material) (see Column 5, lines 25-37); but does not explicitly teach that the first set of first electrodes and the second set of first electrodes is arranged in an alternating manner.
Regarding the electrodes, Lisseman 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 conductive elements are in the form of fingers extending from arc-shaped traces 24. These traces form a “trunk” for the interdigitated conductive elements 14, 16) (see Fig. 5). In view of the teaching of Lisseman, 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 fingers as the electrodes in order to improve the sensitivity of the sensor device without having to add metal specks to the force-sensitive elements, so as to save on costs. Furthermore, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)).
Regarding claim 3, Serban 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., interstice 36) (see Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 4, Serban 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., electrodes 22 and 24 in the form of simple conducting lines arranged along the periphery of the active zone of the sensor) (see Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 6, Serban teaches a method for manufacturing the sensor of claim 1 (i.e., 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, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113)), the method comprising:
providing a first substrate (i.e., support 12) (see Fig. 1) and a second substrate (i.e., support 14) (see Fig. 1);
printing of a first set of first electrodes and a second set of first electrodes on the first substrate (i.e., two electrode structures 22, 24 made of a conducting material, silver for example, separated from each other and preferably printed by serigraphy on the support 12) (see Column 6, lines 1-62);
printing a second electrode extensively on the second substrate (i.e., The second supporting sheet 14 is provided with a contact element 26 made of a conducting material. It may, for example, be simply a layer of graphite or of metal which is printed, laminated or engraved on the second support 14) (see Column 6, lines 1-62);
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., the pressure-sensitive layers are then printed on the electrodes at appropriate places) (see Column 6, lines 1-62);
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 (i.e., the two supporting sheets are then assembled while adjusting their relative positions so that the contact elements on the second support are exactly opposite the electrodes and pressure-sensitive layers on the first support) (see Column 6, lines 1-62);
wherein 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 the folding of one zone on the other) (see Column 6, lines 1-62).
Regarding claim 7, Serban teaches 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., interstice 36) (see Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 8, Serban teaches a method for measuring a force applied to a sensor (i.e., the method of using the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself because only the structures implied by the process steps would be considered and are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps (see MPEP 2113)), the method comprising:
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., When a force is exerted on the active zone 18 of the sensor 10, the two supporting sheets 12 and 14 are pressed together and the conducting element 26 is put into contact with the coatings 28 and 30 of the two electrodes. An electrical contact is thus formed between the two electrodes, whose resistance depends either on the surface resistance at the junction between the pressure-sensitive layer and the contact element, or on the specific resistance of the semiconducting or resistive material of the layers 28 and 30. In both cases, i.e. for both types of pressure-sensitive material, the resistance in question decreases when the applied force increases) (see Column 5, lines 1-44);
but does not explicitly teach 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 (A2), 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; and
determining, using an electrical measuring device, a change of electrical resistance of the sensor and thereby determining the amount of the applied force.
Regarding the electrical measuring device, Lisseman teaches 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 (A2), 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 (see Fig. 3-4); determining, using an electrical measuring device (i.e., processor 510) (see Fig. 28), a change of electrical resistance of the sensor and thereby determining the amount of the applied force (i.e., force-resistance response of the sensor) (see Fig. 6-9). In view of the teaching of Lisseman, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented a processor in order to record and analyze the force-resistance response of the sensors, so as to compare the performance between different sensor devices.
Regarding claim 9, Serban as modified by Lisseman as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach 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 of measured by a measuring device. However, Lisseman teaches that the determination of the change of electrical resistance of the sensor is obtained by one of a determination of a current-change (i.e., the amount and area of an application of pressure allows for current conduction between the conductive elements of the pressure sensor 10 and resistance of the pressure sensitive material, comprising a QTC, in the sensors is a function of the force or pressure acting upon the sensor) (see Column 7, line 4, to Column 8, line 9). In view of the teaching of Lisseman, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the change in electrical resistance or current in order to determine the corresponding amount of applied force, so as to evaluate the sensitivity of the sensor device.
Regarding claim 12, Serban 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, Lisseman 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 conductive elements are in the form of fingers extending from arc-shaped traces 24. These traces form a “trunk” for the interdigitated conductive elements 14, 16) (see Fig. 5). In view of the teaching of Lisseman, 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 fingers as the electrodes in order to improve the sensitivity of the sensor device without having to add metal specks to the force-sensitive elements, so as to save on costs. Furthermore, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)).
Regarding claim 14, Serban 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, Lisseman 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 conductive elements are in the form of fingers extending from arc-shaped traces 24. These traces form a “trunk” for the interdigitated conductive elements 14, 16) (see Fig. 5). In view of the teaching of Lisseman, 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 fingers as the electrodes in order to improve the sensitivity of the sensor device without having to add metal specks to the force-sensitive elements, so as to save on costs. Furthermore, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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