DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/19/2023 and 11/11/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1 (and claims 2-7 by dependency): The first line of claim 1 should read “A device” instead of “Device”.
Regarding claim 6: The first line of claim 6 should read “The system” instead of “System”.
Regarding claim 7: The first line of claim 7 should read “A method of using the system according to claim 5…the method comprising” instead of “Use of the system according to claim 5…the use comprising” or otherwise be corrected.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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and claims 2-7 by dependency): This claim recites “at least one electrically conductive layer, called the lower electrode” as well as “an electrically conductive monolithic layer, referred to as the upper electrode”. The claim later recites “the through-cavity being defined by a volume and extending between the electrically conductive layer and the dielectric layer”. As such, it is unclear which “electrically conductive layer” is being referred to in the recitation of “extending between the electrically conductive layer…’. For the purposes of examination and in light of the specification, this limitation is interpreted as “the through-cavity being defined by a volume and extending between the lower electrode and the dielectric layer”.
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 of this title, 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US 20160273987 A1, prior art of record) in view of Li et al. (US 20190162614 A1).Regarding claim 1:Masuda teaches (e.g., FIG. 12) device for locally measuring a normal mechanical stress exerted by a contact element, said device comprising:
a substrate comprising (50 / 50 + 10), over at least a part of its surface, at least one electrically conductive layer, called the lower electrode (10 - e.g., [0102] - “the first electrode 10”),
a first electrically insulating polymeric layer (70 - e.g., [0103] - “spacer 70 may include an insulating resin such as a polyester resin”) comprising at least one through-cavity (32 - [0068] - “[t]he second dielectric 32 may be an air-filled portion”), the first polymeric layer being arranged on the substrate,
a structure arranged on the first polymeric layer, the structure comprising the following successive layers (see below):
a dielectric layer having a thickness of between 50 µm and 2000 µm (31; e.g., [0065] - “the first dielectric 31 that is thin like a film is readily flexurally deformed, the thickness may be in the range of 1 to 100 μm”) and arranged on the first polymeric layer,
an electrically conductive monolithic layer (20; e.g., [0071] - “second electrode 20 having elasticity may be referred to as an elastic electrode or an elastic electrode layer”), referred to as the upper electrode, and
a second polymeric layer (60; e.g., [0102] - “The pressing member 60 may have flexibility. The pressing member 60 may be a resin board and may include at least one resin component selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polycarbonate, and polyimide, for example”) comprising a surface intended to be in contact with the contact element (the examiner notes the “configured to be” language; Masuda teaches that element 60 is what is intended to receive the pressure to be sensed - [0102]),
the through-cavity being (32) defined by a volume (32) and extending between the electrically conductive layer (10) and the dielectric layer (31), the assembly comprising the through-cavity, the dielectric layer and the lower and upper electrodes forming a capacitor (e.g., [0049]),
the structure being elastically deformable such that when a normal mechanical stress is exerted on the surface of the second polymeric layer intended to be in contact with the contact element the volume of the through-cavity varies so as to change the capacitance of the capacitor (e.g., FIG. 12 and [0049])Masuda fails to explicitly teach:
the first electrically insulating polymeric layer having a thickness comprised between 1 µm and 500 µm;
the monolithic layer having a thickness of between 5 µm and 50 µm(Although Masuda does teach the monolithic layer needing to be thin and flexible - [0072]); and
the second polymeric layer having a thickness of between 10 and 500 µmLi teaches or renders obvious:
the first electrically insulating polymeric layer (i.e., the layer in which the cavity is formed, roughly equivalent to 110 / 155 of Li) having a thickness comprised between 1 µm and 500 µm ([0034] - note that Li gives various cavity sizes); and
the second polymeric layer (i.e., the layer that receives the pressure, equivalent to 120 in Li) having a thickness of between 10 and 500 µm ([0023])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the layer thicknesses of Li in the device of Masuda due to Masuda’s silence regarding the thickness of these layers. Masuda gives the thickness of the dielectric layer and a general sense of the scale of the device, but is silent as to the thicknesses of some layers. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would look elsewhere to similar pressure sensors to determine suitable thicknesses. Additionally/alternatively, the selection of the thicknesses of the various layers is considered by the examiner to be routine optimization, as evidenced by the teachings of Li. This is a results effective variable as thinner layers / electrode / membrane means a more sensitive device, but with a lower maximum pressure and more difficult to produce. In contrast thicker layers are easier to produce and have a higher maximum pressure, but are less sensitive to low pressures.
The limitation of “the monolithic layer” (i.e., the flexible electrode) “having a thickness of between 5 µm and 50 µm” is taught or rendered obvious by: [0072] of Masuda; and/or [0036], [0043], and [0024] of Li. Additionally/alternatively, the thicknesses of the other components of the device and the thickness of the overall device would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the flexible electrode has a thickness of 5-50 µm, especially the upper end of said range. Additionally/alternatively, the selection of thicknesses of the various layers, such as the flexible electrode, is considered by the examiner to be routine optimization. This is a results effective variable as thinner layers / electrode / membrane means a more sensitive device, but with a lower maximum pressure and more difficult to produce. In contrast thicker layers are easier to produce and have a higher maximum pressure, but are less sensitive to low pressures.
Regarding claim 2:Masuda and Li render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Masuda teaches or renders obvious:
wherein said dielectric layer has a Young's modulus of between 0.5 and 5 MPa
Masuda teaches (abstract) that the at least one protrusion (10 / 15) has a higher elastic modulus than the first dielectric (31). Masuda teaches the protrusion having an elastic modulus of 1 or 10 MPa (106 Pa or 109 Pa). See [0054]. Masuda explicitly teaches ([0063]) the dielectric layer having an elastic modulus of 104 to 106 Pa (which is 0.01 MPa to 1 MPa). However, Masuda refers to the “elastic modulus”, which is not exactly the same as the “Young’s modulus”. There is more than one form of elastic modulus (i.e. anisotropic materials or construction), but if nothing more specific than “elastic modulus” is mentioned it is usually assumed to mean the Young’s modulus. Elastic modulus is general. For anisotropy, one may also specify Young’s modulus, shear modulus, bulk modulus, and flexural modulus, for example. Given the overall disclosure of Masuda, especially considering [0086] which recites “E [Pa] is Young’s modulus”, the examiner holds that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret Masuda as teaching or rendering obvious the instant claim limitation. Additionally/alternatively, the Young’s modulus of the dielectric layer is held by the examiner to be routine optimization. Masuda explicitly teaches that the elastic modulus of the dielectric layer 31 may be adjusted ([0066]). This is a results effective variable as it heavily influences the pressure regime of the sensor (thinner being more sensitive but with a lower maximum pressure; thicker being less sensitive but easier to produce and with a higher maximum pressure).
Regarding claim 3:Masuda and Li render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Masuda also teaches:
an electrical connection connected to said electrically conductive layer, said electrical connection being intended to connect said electrically conductive layer to an element for measuring the normal mechanical stress exerted by the contact element on the second polymeric layer as a function of the variation in capacitance of the capacitor(e.g., [0099], [0049]; this is also inherent to the operation of the device of Masuda, as disclosed)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US 20160273987 A1, prior art of record) in view of Li et al. (US 20190162614 A1) and further in view of Baek (US 20030079547 A1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 4:Masuda and Li render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Masuda fails to teach:
wherein: multiple electrically conductive layers are arranged on the substrate, the first polymeric layer comprises several through-cavities, each of the through-cavities being defined by a volume and extending between one of said electrically conductive layers and the dielectric layerBaek teaches (FIG. 9):
wherein: multiple electrically conductive layers (the four labeled and unlabeled bottom electrodes 102) are arranged on the substrate (equivalent to 100 of Baek), each of the through-cavities (the four labeled and unlabeled wells 101) being defined by a volume (101) and extending between one of said electrically conductive layers (equivalent to the electrodes of Baek) and the “dielectric layer” (equivalent to the top or bottom of the cavity or one of the insulating films of Baek; also met upon combination with Masuda)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaches of Baek (a plurality of cavities, each capable of sensing pressure) into the device of Masuda to yield a pressure distribution sensor. The device of Masuda senses essentially a single pressure / force on 60. By incorporating the teachings of Baek, the pressure at a plurality of locations (i.e., a pressure distribution) may be measured.
Regarding the limitation of “the first polymeric layer comprises several through-cavities”: This is met upon combination of Masuda and Baek.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (US 20160273987 A1, prior art of record) in view of Li et al. (US 20190162614 A1) and further in view of Schramm et al. (DE 19632589 A1 - all citations are to the attached English translation).Regarding claim 5:Masuda and Li render obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Masuda and Li also render obvious:
a system for locally measuring a normal mechanical stress exerted by a contact element, said system comprising: a device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above),Masuda fails to teach:
a rheometer comprising a lower surface intended to be arranged on the side of the substrate of the device and an upper surface intended to be arranged on the side of the second polymeric layer, and an element for measuring the normal mechanical stress exerted by a contact element on the second polymeric layer as a function of the variation in capacitance of the capacitor or capacitorsSchramm teaches (FIGS. 1-2)
a rheometer (e.g., [0011]) comprising a lower surface (e.g., bottom of 2 which contacts the pressure sensor) intended to be arranged on the side of the substrate (e.g., 5 / bottom of pressure sensor)) of the device and an upper surface (1a / 1b / 1c / 1d - bottom surface thereof) intended to be arranged on the side of the second polymeric layer (met upon combination with Masuda…i.e., the upper surface of the rheometer is that which will be pressing, directly or indirectly, on the pressure sensor and, thus, on the second polymeric layer of Masuda), and an element for measuring the normal mechanical stress (met by each of Masuda, Li, and Schramm; inherent; it is the element / device which outputs or calculates the pressure / force information) exerted by a contact element (e.g., 3a / 3b / 3c / 3d) on the second polymeric layer as a function of the variation in capacitance of the capacitor or capacitors (this is met upon combination with Masuda)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Masuda / Masuda and Li in a rheometer, as taught by Schramm, to increase the accuracy of the device of Schramm and/or it is an art-recognized intended use for a pressure sensor such as that of Masuda / Masuda and Li.
Regarding claim 6:Masuda, Li, and Schramm render obvious all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 5 rejection above, Masuda, Li, and Schramm render obvious:
wherein, when said device comprises multiple capacitors, said measurement element is connected to each electrically conductive layer of each of said capacitors(inherent in the operation of the combination of the device; the examiner also notes the use of the word “when” - see MPEP 2111.04 II “Contingent Limitations”)
Regarding claim 7:Masuda, Li, and Schramm render obvious all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 5 rejection above, Masuda, Li, and Schramm render obvious:
use of the system according to claim 5 (see claim 5 rejection above) for locally measuring a normal mechanical stress exerted by a contact element, the use comprising the following successive steps: inserting the device between the lower and upper surfaces of the rheometer, applying a contact element between the upper layer of the rheometer and the surface of the second polymeric layer, intended to be in contact with the contact element, of the device, observing a variation in capacitance of the capacitor, and deducing the normal mechanical stress exerted locally by the contact element(The recited use / method limitations are clearly met by the use of the device of the combination of Masuda, Li, and Schramm set forth in the claim 5 rejection above. See the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above as well as FIGS. 1-2 of Schramm)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855