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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I and subgroup IA in the reply filed on 2/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant argues on pgs. 2-3,
“The terms characterized as benefits by the Office (e.g., excellent signal quality, low noise, etc.) are presented as relative terms and as such have meaning based on what disclosure was being compared to arrive at such conclusions. For example, Tenzer discloses that the "excellent signal quality" is attributable to the use "chips" and is expressly stated to be in comparison to "standard digital bus interfaces." One skilled in the art would therefore not reasonably expect based on the disclosure of Tenzer to the see the alleged benefit merely by virtue of the use of barometric pressure sensors. Likewise, while Tenzer discloses "excellent linearity and low noise," Tenzer does not disclose against what reference it concludes that linearity and noise are excellent and low, respectively.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Tenzer’s description of barometric sensors as having low noise and excellent linearity are sufficient to provide a motivation to combine the references, since one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to at least try the combination to achieve the described benefits.
Applicant argues on pg. 3,
“Tenzer also attributes the alleged benefit of robustness to the encapsulation with "soft polymers" not to the use of barometric pressure sensors per se. Tenzer further attributes the statement that "only basic electrical and mechanical skills are required" to the use of commercial off-the-shelf parts and not to the use of barometric pressure sensors per se.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Tenzer teaches, in the abstract, “This approach promises to make sensitive, robust, and inexpensive tactile sensing available for a wide range of robotics and human-interface applications.” This means the sensing performed by the barometric sensors is what is robust.
Furthermore, Tenzer’s abstract teaches “This article presents a new approach to the construction of tactile array sensors based on barometric pressure sensor chips and standard printed circuit boards (PCBs). The chips include tightly integrated instrumentation amplifiers, analog-to-digital converters, pressure and temperature sensors, and control circuitry that provides excellent signal quality over standard digital bus interfaces. The resulting array electronics can be easily encapsulated with soft polymers to provide robust and compliant grasping surfaces for specific hand designs. The use of standard commercial off-the-shelf technologies means that only basic electrical and mechanical skills are required to build effective tactile sensors for new applications.” Accordingly, by the context of what is written in Tenzer, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the barometric sensors are included in the phrase “the standard commercial off-the-shelf technologies” and/or that the barometric sensors allow the use of standard commercial off-the-shelf technologies in order to attain the described benefit.
Applicant argues on pg. 3 that “One skilled in the art, based on the current record including the disclosure of Tenzer, would not objectively conclude that the modification proposed by the Office would realize the alleged benefits described in Tenzer. For at least these reasons, one skilled in the art would not have found it obvious to modify Kuge to use the barometric pressure sensors as taught by Tenzer.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s previous arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 3 that “Since Kuge does not teach "wherein the pressure sensors are barometric pressure sensors" (p. 5, Office action 12/22/2025), Applicant submits that the Groups I-II and the Subgroups IA-IB both recite a special technical feature and thus also possess unity of invention.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Tenzer provides the teaching of barometric sensors.
The Examiner notes that the combination of Kuge and Tenzer would additionally or alternatively be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing tactile sensors for another for the predictable result that contact pressure is still successfully detected.
The Examiner additionally notes that claim 1 is anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 20210394360 A1) as discussed below. Accordingly, even if Applicant’s arguments above were persuasive, which the Examiner does not admit, the groups and subgroups above still lack unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-15, 18, 27-29, and 31-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/20/26.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the plurality of barometric pressure sensors are arranged with a distance of at least 1 mm, at least 2 mm, at least 3 mm, at least 4 mm, or at least 5 mm and/or with a distance of at most 1 mm, at most 2 mm, at most 3 mm, at most 4 mm, or at most 5 mm.”
Claim 10 recites multiple combinations of distances which conflict with each other, making the scope of the claim unclear. For example, how can the distance be at least 5 mm and at most 1 mm?
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending or deleting portions of the claim to remove all conflicting combinations of dimensions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 20210394360 A1, hereinafter Hwang).
As to claim 1, Hwang teaches sensor arrangement for sensing forces,
the sensor arrangement comprising:
a flexible circuit board 111 (¶34),
a plurality of barometric pressure sensors 12 (¶33) being mounted on the flexible circuit board,
a rigid core 112, which the flexible circuit board is wrapped around and mounted to, so that the flexible circuit board at least partially covers the rigid core with the plurality of barometric pressure sensors protruding away from the rigid core (fig. 3A), and
a compliant layer 13 (¶12 and ¶35) covering the plurality of barometric pressure sensors and providing a measurement surface (¶7).
As to claim 2, Hwang teaches wherein the rigid core is dome shaped (i.e. at least substantially dome shaped).
As to claim 3, Hwang teaches wherein the rigid core has a plurality of facets, wherein each barometric pressure sensor of the plurality of barometric pressure sensors is positioned on one of the plurality of facets (figs. 3A-3B).
As to claim 4, Hwang teaches wherein the compliant layer comprises a rubber (¶12).
As to claim 6, Hwang teaches wherein the compliant layer relays forces applied on the measurement surface to at least a part of the plurality of barometric pressure sensors (¶7).
As to claim 7, Hwang teaches wherein the plurality of barometric pressure sensors are connected by conductor paths on the flexible circuit board (¶34; ¶36).
As to claim 8, Hwang teaches wherein the flexible circuit board is asterisk-shaped (at least substantially asterisk-shaped).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (CP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Arm)]
PNG
media_image1.png
448
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, Hwang teaches wherein the flexible circuit board comprises a plurality of arms (see fig. 3C above) being connected at a central portion CP (fig. 3C above; the arms form an arm portion of the circuit board, and the arms are connected at the central portion CP of the arm portion).
As to claim 10, Hwang teaches wherein the plurality of barometric pressure sensors are arranged with a distance of at least 1 mm (the claim does not define what the sensors are distanced from; accordingly, the pressure sensors are able to be arranged with a distance of at least 1 mm from something else).
As to claim 11, Hwang teaches wherein the sensor arrangement is a robot tip, a manipulation element of a robot, or both a robot tip and a manipulation element of a robot (¶7 and figs. 1 and 3A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang under a second interpretation.
As to claim 10, Hwang teaches wherein the plurality of barometric pressure sensors (at least two of sensors 12) are arranged with a distance (the at least one distance between two of sensors 12 shown in the figures).
Hwang does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of barometric pressure sensors are arranged with a distance of at least 1 mm, at least 2 mm, at least 3 mm, at least 4 mm, or at least 5 mm and/or with a distance of at most 1 mm, at most 2 mm, at most 3 mm, at most 4 mm, or at most 5 mm.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). Accordingly, the size of at least the overall apparatus of Hwang can be adjusted such that the plurality of barometric pressure sensors are arranged with a distance of at least 1 mm, at least 2 mm, at least 3 mm, at least 4 mm, or at least 5 mm or with a distance of at most 1 mm, at most 2 mm, at most 3 mm, at most 4 mm, or at most 5 mm, and the size of the overall apparatus resulting in the claimed distance would not be sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the size of the overall apparatus of Hwang such that the plurality of barometric pressure sensors are arranged with a distance of at least 1 mm, at least 2 mm, at least 3 mm, at least 4 mm, or at least 5 mm or with a distance of at most 1 mm, at most 2 mm, at most 3 mm, at most 4 mm, or at most 5 mm, since such a modification would be a mere change in size for the predictable result that the weight of the apparatus is reduced (if the size is decreased) or the apparatus can grasp larger items (if the size is increased).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2020022011 A1 teaches a dome-shaped tactile sensor 5 for “a fingertip of a robot hand”
US 20180110562 A1 teaches a PCB 60, 66 (¶30) having pressure sensors thereon (¶34), wherein portion 66 of the PCB is asterisk-shaped and covers the surface of a dome-shaped body 68 (see figs. 2 and 4)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights