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 09/11/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the features of "when a diameter of each conductor wire is not greater than 0.3 mm, the plurality of conductor wires are disposed such that a gap between the plurality of conductor wires is not less than 0.6 mm," and "when the diameter of each conductor wire is greater than 0.3 mm, the plurality of conductor wires are disposed such that the gap between the plurality of conductor wires is not less than twice the diameter of each conductor wire," and that the Office’s conclusion lacks “lacks a clear rationale or teaching in the prior art that addresses the specific structural tradeoff between wire density and sensor deformability”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, the MPEP states that “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem” (see MPEP 2144-IV).
The examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Ogura and Shimomoto teaches the contingent limitation of “when the diameter of each conductor wire is greater than 0.3 mm, the plurality of conductor wires are disposed such that the gap between the plurality of conductor wires is not less than twice the diameter of each conductor wire”. In this case, Ogura as modified by Shimomoto teaches that when the diameter of each conductor wire is greater than 0.3 mm (i.e., fixed electrodes 7 each has a width of 2 mm) (see Column 15, line 41, to Column 16, line 23) , the plurality of conductor wires are disposed such that the gap between the plurality of conductor wires is not less than twice the diameter of each conductor wire (i.e., fixed electrodes 7 are provided at intervals of 10mm) (see Column 15, lines 41-58). The combination of references does not have to disclose the other contingent limitation in the claim because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently amended claim does not require the combination of references to teach both conditional statements of the currently amended claim. In fact, the MPEP states that “he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the conditions precedent are not met” (see MPEP 2111.04).
In this case, the examiner respectfully submits that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)), that discovering of optimum or workable ranges involves only experimentation or routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)), and that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (V-D)).
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
339
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura et al. (Pat. No. US 9,904,395) (hereafter Ogura) in view of Shimomoto et al. (Pat. No. US 7,938,025) (hereafter Shimomoto) .
Regarding claim 1, Ogura teaches a load sensor configured to detect a load applied to a sensor part from outside, based on change in capacitance, the load sensor comprising:
two base members disposed so as to face each other (i.e., sub insulation layer 17 and support layer 30) (see Fig. 5);
two electrically-conductive elastic bodies respectively disposed on opposing faces of the two base members (i.e., first conductive layer 12 and second conductive layer 22) (see Fig. 5); and
a plurality of conductor wires disposed between the two electrically-conductive elastic bodies (i.e., second wiring layers 25 comprising copper wiring layers, which are interposed between two pieces of such a polyimide film, are provided in a strip shape with a width of approximately 5 mm and a length of approximately 10 cm in one direction. The physical length such as the thickness, length, width and the relative permittivity of each layer may be properly selected so that capacitance change of 2 to 1000 pF is obtained in a desired range of applied pressure, and desired pressure sensor characteristics are thereby obtained) (see Fig. 5); but does not explicitly teach that
when a diameter of each conductor wire is not greater than 0.3 mm, the plurality of conductor wires are disposed such that a gap between the plurality of conductor wires is not less than 0.6 mm, and when the diameter of each conductor wire is greater than 0.3 mm, the plurality of conductor wires are disposed such that the gap between the plurality of conductor wires is not less than twice the diameter of each conductor wire.
Regarding the gap, Simomoto teaches that, when the diameter of each conductor wire is greater than 0.3 mm (i.e., fixed electrodes 7 each has a width of 2 mm) (see Column 15, line 41, to Column 16, line 23), the plurality of conductor wires are disposed such that the gap between the plurality of conductor wires is not less than twice the diameter of each conductor wire (i.e., fixed electrodes 7 are provided at intervals of 10mm) (see Column 15, lines 41-58). In view of the teaching of Shimomoto, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have disposed the wirings at predetermined intervals in order to optimize the sensing pattern geometry, so as to improve sensor precision and stability. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)), that discovering of optimum or workable ranges involves only experimentation or routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)), and that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (V-D)).
Regarding claim 2, Ogura teaches a maximum number of the conductor wires disposed (i.e., the number of the plurality of second wiring layers 25 on second common electrode layer 42) (see Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 3, Ogura teaches the two electrically-conductive elastic bodies are disposed, extending in one direction (i.e., the first conductive layer 12 and the second conductive layer 22 may be provided so that the first projections 11 and the second projections 21 are “each oriented in the same direction”) (see Column 19, line 46, to Column 20, line 7), a plurality of the sensor parts are disposed in the direction in which the two electrically- conductive elastic bodies extend (i.e., stacked configuration) (see Fig. 5), and the plurality of the conductor wires are disposed in each of the sensor parts (i.e., the second wiring layers 25 are disposed in between the first conductive layer 12 and the second conductive layer 22) (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Ogura teaches that a plurality of sets of the two electrically-conductive elastic bodies are disposed in one direction (i.e., the first conductive layer 12 and the second conductive layer 22 may be provided so that the first projections 11 and the second projections 21 are “each oriented in the same direction”) (see Column 19, line 46, to Column 20, line 7), the plurality of the conductor wires are disposed along the plurality of sets (i.e., stacked configuration) (see Fig. 5), and the sensor part is disposed at each of positions where the plurality of sets of the two electrically-conductive elastic bodies and the plurality of conductor wires cross each other (i.e., the second wiring layers 25 are disposed in between the first conductive layer 12 and the second conductive layer 22) (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Ogura teaches that each conductor wire includes an electrically-conductive member having a linear shape (i.e., the plurality of second wiring layers 25 is each provided to extend in an elongated shape, and is arranged with a predetermined pitch interval) (see Fig. 3C), and a dielectric body covering the electrically-conductive member (i.e., second dielectric layer 27 covers a surface of the second wiring layers 25) (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Ogura teaches that each electrically-conductive elastic body is configured to have a hardness of 10° to 90° or a Young's modulus of 3 MPa to 170 MPa (i.e., The elastic modulus of the first conductive layer 12, particularly, the elastic modulus of the first projections 11 may be approximately 104 to 108 Pa so that the first projections 11 are gradually deformed by a normal pressing force (for instance, a pressing force of approximately 1 to 10 N) applied to the pressure sensitive element 10) (see Column 8, lines 53-65). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07) and that discovering of optimum or workable ranges involves only experimentation or routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
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