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 .
Status of Claims
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on 9/14/2023 that added claims 5-6. Accordingly, an Office Action on the merits of claims 1-6 is as follows:
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito (US 2002/0056918 A1).
Considering claim 1, Saito discloses a sensor configured to detect pressure, the pressure sensor comprising:
- a first sheet member 11 (Figures 3-4; [0062]; and
- a second sheet member 15 disposed to overlie the first sheet member (Figure 4; [0064]),
- wherein first and second electrodes 12a are formed on the first sheet member 11 (Figures 3-4; [0062]),
- a third electrode 16a covered by a pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer 12b,16b is formed on the second sheet member 15 (Figure 4; [0062]; [0064], 0068),
- when the pressure sensor is being used, a voltage is applied between the first and second electrodes ([0065]), and
- regardless of whether the pressure sensor is being used, the first and second electrodes are each in contact with the pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer ([0025]).
Considering claim 2, Saito discloses the third electrode is made of the same material as the first and second electrodes ([0050]; [0055]; [0062]; [0064]).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deppiesse et al. (US 2011/0221564 A1).
Considering claim 1, Deppiesse discloses a pressure sensor configured to detect pressure, the pressure sensor comprising:
- a first sheet member 252; and
- a second sheet member (unshown protective layer) disposed to overlie the first sheet member (Figure 10; [0048], similar to Figure 2 having 52 overlaying substrate 42; [0029-32]);
- wherein first 254 and second electrodes 256 are formed on the first sheet member (Figures 10, 3, 4 and 7; [0048]; [0034]; [0029]);
- a third electrode 262 covered by a pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer 260 is formed on the second sheet member (Figure 10; [0048]);
- when the pressure sensor is being used, a voltage is applied between the first and second electrodes ([0007-10]; [0034]; [0048]), and
- regardless of whether the pressure sensor is being used, the first and second electrodes are each in contact with the pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer (Figure 10; [0048]).
Considering claim 4, Deppiesse discloses that the first and second electrodes each includes a portion having a comb-teeth shape (Figures 3, 4 and 7; [0048]; [0034]; [0029]).
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 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2002/0056918 A1) in view of Hashida (US 5948990 A).
Considering claim 3, the invention by Saito fails to explicitly disclose that the ratio of the length between the first and second electrodes to the thickness of the pressure-sensitive electroconductive layer is more than 40.
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 either the invention by Saito. 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 5, Saito discloses that the first and second electrodes are split electrodes (Figure 3), but fails to explicitly disclose that the first and second electrodes each includes a portion having a comb-teeth shape.
However, Hashida teaches the use of comb-teeth shaped first and second electrodes (Figure 3B; Column 6, lines 1-16).
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 Hashida, in the invention by Saito. 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 6, Saito discloses that the first and second electrodes are split electrodes (Figure 3), but fails to explicitly disclose that the first and second electrodes each includes a portion having a comb-teeth shape.
However, Hashida teaches the use of comb-teeth shaped first and second electrodes (Figure 3B; Column 6, lines 1-16).
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 Hashida, in the invention by Saito. 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 unpatentable over Deppiesse et al. (US 20110221564 A1) in view of Hashida (US 5948990 A).
Considering claim 3, the invention by Deppiesse fails to explicitly disclose the ratio of the length between the first and second electrodes to the 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 either the invention by Deppiesse. 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, Deppiesse discloses comb teeth electrodes (Figures 3, 4, 6 and 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lisseman et al. discloses interdigitated comb teeth electrodes that are separated by a gap on a first substrate and overlayed with a pressure-sensitive layer directly adhered thereto.
Hager discloses an insulating substrate having comb-teeth conducting electrodes thereon, the electrodes covered by a pressure sensing ink layer, a third conducting region overlaying the pressure sensing ink layer and a second insulating substrate supporting the third conducing region, essentially claims 1 and 4. This reference was not used as it does not add more than the Deppiesse reference, already used in the rejection, provides.
Sakamoto also discloses a substate having first and second electrodes, overlayed with a pressure-sensitive material, overlayed with a third electrode and a second substrate.
JP S61-78101 discloses the interchangeability of split and interdigitated electrodes as first electrodes 4,5 overlayed by a pressure-sensitive conductor 3 and a third electrode 6.
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 September 22, 2025