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 .
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lettow et al. (US 10176937 B2) in view of Borgudd (US 4793193 A).
Considering claim 1, Lettow discloses a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure, the pressure sensor comprising:
- a first sheet member 48 (Figure 3; Column 2, lines 26-31); and
- a second sheet member 50 disposed to overlie the first sheet member 48 (Figure 3; Column 2, lines 26-31).
- wherein first 22 and second 24 electrodes are formed on the first sheet member 48 (Figures 2 and 3; Column 2, lines 18-25),
- a third electrode 26 covered by a pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer 28 is formed on the second sheet member (Figures 2 and 3; Column 2, lines 18-31),
- when the pressure sensor is being used, a voltage is applied between the first and second electrodes (Column 1, line 61 – Column 2, line 5; Column 2, lines 21-25; Column 5, lines 46-50; it is understood that switches or sensors requiring current flow from one electrode, to another, through a resistor, inherently require a voltage), and
- regardless of whether the pressure sensor is being used, the first and second electrodes include a portion that is in direct contact with the pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer (Abstract; Column 2, lines 56-59; Column 1, lines 5-58),
The invention by Lettow discloses that the pressure is detected based on a change in the current flowing from first to second electrodes, as the pressure is increased to compress the pressure-sensitive layer, and thus fails to explicitly disclose that the pressure sensor is configured to detect pressure based on a change in a contact area between each of the first and second electrodes and the pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer because they electrodes and pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer appear to have constant surface area contact.
However, Borgudd discloses the use of a pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer 16 overlaying a first 19 and second 20 electrode, which are present on base plate 4, whereby the layer 16 is in constant contact with the electrodes, and, as pressure increases, the surface area of contact increases between the layer and the electrodes by collapsing undulations 18 in the layer 16 (Figures 1-4; Column 3, lines 49-59; Column 4, lines 4-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize undulations, was taught by Borgudd, which allow a change in contact area between a pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer and electrodes, in the invention by Lettow. The motivation for doing so is to provide an increase in sensitivity, by adding gaps in undulations, the sensitivity is increased to lower initial pressure, such as pre-loading or contact, while maintaining the overall ability to measure pressure at a different sensitivity in the bulk layer, as required.
Considering claim 2, Lettow discloses that the third electrode 26 is made of the same material as the first 22 and second 24 electrodes (Column 2, lines 45-65).
Considering claim 4, Lettow discloses that the first 22 and second 24 electrodes are split electrodes (Figure 2), but, Lettow, as fails to explicitly disclose that the first and second electrodes each includes a portion having a comb-teeth shape.
However, Borgudd teaches the use of comb-teeth shaped first 19 and second 20 electrodes (Figure 3; Column 3, lines 48-66, interdigitated comb-teeth shaped electrodes clearly shown in figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize comb-teeth shaped electrodes, as taught by Borgudd, in the invention by Lettow. As understood in the art, comb-teeth shaped interdigitated electrodes provide enhanced sensitivity because they provide more surface area for detecting contact between the electrodes.
Considering claim 5, Lettow discloses that the first 22 and second 24 electrodes are split electrodes (Figure 2), but, Lettow, as fails to explicitly disclose that the first and second electrodes each includes a portion having a comb-teeth shape.
However, Borgudd teaches the use of comb-teeth shaped first 19 and second 20 electrodes (Figure 3; Column 3, lines 48-66, interdigitated comb-teeth shaped electrodes clearly shown in figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize comb-teeth shaped electrodes, as taught by Borgudd, in the invention by Lettow. As understood in the art, comb-teeth shaped interdigitated electrodes provide enhanced sensitivity because they provide more surface area for detecting contact between the electrodes.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Lettow et al. (US 10176937 B2) in view of Borgudd (US 4793193 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashida (US 5948990 A).
Considering claim 3, Lettow discloses that the thickness T1 of the pressure-senstiive electroconductive layer can be between at least 100 nm up to at least 1mm (Column 5, line 59 – Column 6, line 23), but the invention by Lettow, as modified by Borgudd, fails to mention the size of the lateral gap L1 between electrodes, and thus fails to explicitly disclose that L1/T1 is larger than 40, where L1 is a distance between the first and second electrodes and T1 is a thickness of the pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer.
However, Hashida explicitly teaches the use of a 2.5 mm electrode spacing with a 10 micron thickness pressure-sensitive layer, thus providing a ratio of 250 (Column 7, lines 15-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an electrode spacing distance and pressure-sensitive layer thickness providing a ratio of more than 40, as taught by Hashida, in the invention by Lettow, as modified by Borgudd. The motivation for doing so, as provided by Hashida, is that the gap width is a result effective variable with respect to the pressure-sensitive characteristics, whereby intended purpose of the pressure sensitive resistor will dictate the desired gap width (Column 6, lines 36-41). Furthermore, the courts have held that the optimization of proportions in a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art, see In re Reese, 290 F.2d 839, 129 USPQ 402 (CCPA 1961).
Considering claim 6, Lettow discloses that the first 22 and second 24 electrodes are split electrodes (Figure 2), but, Lettow, as fails to explicitly disclose that the first and second electrodes each includes a portion having a comb-teeth shape.
However, Borgudd teaches the use of comb-teeth shaped first 19 and second 20 electrodes (Figure 3; Column 3, lines 48-66, interdigitated comb-teeth shaped electrodes clearly shown in figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize comb-teeth shaped electrodes, as taught by Borgudd, in the invention by Lettow. As understood in the art, comb-teeth shaped interdigitated electrodes provide enhanced sensitivity because they provide more surface area for detecting contact between the electrodes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 April 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights