DETAILED ACTIONAcknowledgment is made of applicant’s amendment filed 1/22/26.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 Objections
Claims 14, 19 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 14, on line 3, it appears that “Providing” should read providing. On line 5, “providing a plurality of one sensor device” is unclear. Regarding claim 19, on line 2, “said further supporting devices” lacks antecedent basis. Regarding claim 24, on line 2, it appears that there should be a comma after “prosthesis”. Appropriate corrections is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9 – 11 and 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the instant case, claims 9, 11, and 22, which depend on claim 8, respectively require “the membrane layer”, claim 10, which depends on claim 8, requires the “membrane layer” and “the electrode layer”, and claim 21, which depends on claim 8, requires “the electrode layer” and “the wiring layer”. However, claim 8 requires at least one of a sensor layer that is provided as a membrane layer, or a sensor layer that is provided as an electrode layer, or a sensor layer that is provided as a wiring layer, or a supporting layer that is provided as a base layer or a supporting layer that is provided as an interconnection layer. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 – 4, 6 – 11, 14 – 15, 18 – 21, 23, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boggs et al. (6,444,487, hereinafter Boggs).
Regarding claim 1, Boggs discloses an apparatus comprising at least one central device 70 (See Fig. 15), a plurality of supporting devices 18, and a plurality of sensor devices 12, wherein the supporting devices are in connection with the central device, the sensor devices are in communication with the central device, the central device is configured to receive at least one sensor signal from the sensor devices, the supporting devices are configured at least partially separately from one another, the supporting devices are of an elongated shape and extend at least partially along an elongation direction, the supporting devices have a largest geometrical extension along the elongation direction, the sensor devices are arranged at least partially along at least one of the supporting devices or the elongation direction, the sensor devices are at least partially structurally integrated into the supporting devices, and the sensor devices, the supporting devices and the central device are designed monolithically (See Figs. 15 – 27, See Col. 3, lines 23 – 65, Col. 4, lines 20 – 29, Col. 5, lines 57 – 67 and Col. 6, lines 1 – 22 and 38 – 62).
Regarding claim 2, the sensor devices, the supporting devices and the central device are at least one of designed monolithically or are at least partially arranged within a common plane (See Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 3, the sensor system is flexible (See Col. 5, lines 48 - 55).
Regarding claim 4, the length of the supporting devices along the elongation direction is larger than a width of the supporting devices device along a transverse direction extending perpendicularly to the elongation direction and to the extension direction (See Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 6, the sensor devices are the same or different from one another (See Fig. 15, See Col. 3, lines 55 – 65 and Col. 4, lines 20 – 29). Regarding claim 7, the supporting devices 18 comprise at least one supporting layer 26, and the sensor devices 12 comprise at least one sensor layer 36 (See Col. 4, lines 20 – 29).
Regarding claim 8, the sensor layer is provided as a membrane layer being configured to yield at least one sensor signal (See Col. 4, lines 1 – 29).
Regarding claim 9, the membrane layer is flexible (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, the sensor device comprises multiple layers (See Figs. 4 and 15) Regarding claim 11, members 20, 24 facilitates movement of the membrane layer (See Fig. 10, See Col. 5, lines 11 – 36).
Regarding claim 14, Boggs discloses an apparatus comprising at least one central device 70 (See Fig. 15), a plurality of supporting devices 18, and a plurality of sensor devices 12, wherein the supporting devices are in connection with the central device, the sensor devices are in communication with the central device, the central device is configured to receive at least one sensor signal from the sensor devices, the supporting devices are configured at least partially separately from one another, the supporting devices are of an elongated shape and extend at least partially along an elongation direction, the supporting devices have a largest geometrical extension along the elongation direction, the sensor devices are arranged at least partially along at least one of the supporting devices or the elongation direction, the sensor devices are at least partially structurally integrated into the supporting devices, and the sensor devices, the supporting devices and the central device are designed monolithically (See Figs. 15 – 27, See Col. 3, lines 23 – 65, Col. 4, lines 20 – 29, Col. 5, lines 57 – 67 and Col. 6, lines 1 – 22 and 38 – 62).
Regarding claim 15, at least one supporting layer and at least one sensor layer are produced (See Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 18, at least one of the central device, the supporting device devices or the sensor devices is flexible (See Col. 5, lines 48 - 55)
Regarding claim 19, supporting devices 22 are configured entirely separately from the supporting device 18 (See Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 20, the supporting layer and the sensor layer are arranged alternatingly with respect to the extension direction (See Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 21, terminals 72 are provided (See Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 23, the sensor devices include capacitive sensors (See Col. 4, lines 55 – 65).
Regarding claim 26, the sensor layer is metallic (See Col. 3, lines 23 – 27).
Regarding claim 27, the central device 70 is formed by a layer that merges into a layer that forms at least one of the supporting devices 18 (See Fig. 15).
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.
10. Claims 12, 13, 16, 22, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggs in view of Liu et al. (2005/0021247, hereinafter Liu). Regarding claim 12, Boggs discloses an apparatus comprising at least one central device 70 (See Fig. 15), a plurality of supporting devices 18, and a plurality of sensor devices 12, wherein the supporting devices are in connection with the central device, the sensor devices are in communication with the central device, the central device is configured to receive at least one sensor signal from the sensor devices, the supporting devices are configured at least partially separately from one another, the supporting devices are of an elongated shape and extend at least partially along an elongation direction, the supporting devices have a largest geometrical extension along the elongation direction, the sensor devices are arranged at least partially along at least one of the supporting devices or the elongation direction, the sensor devices are at least partially structurally integrated into the supporting devices, and the sensor devices, the supporting devices and the central device are designed monolithically (See Figs. 15 – 27, See Col. 3, lines 23 – 65, Col. 4, lines 20 – 29, Col. 5, lines 57 – 67 and Col. 6, lines 1 – 22 and 38 – 62).
Boggs fails to disclose that the sensor system comprises a three-dimensional device. However, Liu discloses an apparatus comprising a sensor 32 that comprises a three-dimensional device (See Pg. 5, Para. 0074). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Boggs according to the teachings of Liu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device integrates flexible polymer devices with discrete silicon chips for signal processing (See Liu, Pg. 3, Para. 0050).
Regarding claim 13, in Boggs, the sensor system is flexible (See Col. 5, lines 48 - 55). Regarding claim 16, Boggs fails to disclose that the sensor system is arranged on a surface of or in a surface of a three-dimensional device.
However, in Liu, the sensor 32 comprises a three-dimensional device (See Pg. 5, Para. 0074). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Boggs according to the teachings of Liu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device integrates flexible polymer devices with discrete silicon chips for signal processing (See Liu, Pg. 3, Para. 0050).
Regarding claim 22, Boggs fails to disclose that the membrane layer is spring-mounted via one or more spring elements. However, in Liu, the sensor is flexible and is mounted in a cantilevered-manner (See Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Boggs according to the teachings of Liu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device integrates flexible polymer devices with discrete silicon chips for signal processing (See Liu, Pg. 3, Para. 0050).
Regarding claim 24, Boggs fails to disclose that the three-dimensional device is at least one of a biomimetic device, artificial skin, a prosthesis, a robot, a mechanical device or an electromechanical device, or is implemented as a tactile sensor system. However, in Liu, the sensor 32 is a tactile sensor and a three-dimensional device that includes skin (See Pg. 5, Para. 0074). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Boggs according to the teachings of Liu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device integrates flexible polymer devices with discrete silicon chips for signal processing (See Liu, Pg. 3, Para. 0050).
Regarding claim 28, Boggs fails to disclose that at least one of the sensor devices comprises a sensor layer embedded in the layer of the central device and the layer of the at least one of the supporting devices. However, in Liu, the sensor 32 comprises a sensor layer embedded in the layer of the central device 83 and the layer of the at least one of the supporting devices 84. (See Fig. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Boggs according to the teachings of Liu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device integrates flexible polymer devices with discrete silicon chips for signal processing (See Liu, Pg. 3, Para. 0050).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on Pg. 13, lines 18 – 20 and Pg. 15, lines 1 – 3,
with respect to these claims 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. After further consideration, it is the Examiner’s position that Boggs discloses, an apparatus comprising at least one central device 70 (See Fig. 15), a plurality of supporting devices 18, and a plurality of sensor devices 12, wherein the supporting devices are in connection with the central device, the sensor devices are in communication with the central device, the central device is configured to receive at least one sensor signal from the sensor devices, the supporting devices are configured at least partially separately from one another, the supporting devices are of an elongated shape and extend at least partially along an elongation direction, the supporting devices have a largest geometrical extension along the elongation direction, the sensor devices are arranged at least partially along at least one of the supporting devices or the elongation direction, the sensor devices are at least partially structurally integrated into the supporting devices, and the sensor devices, the supporting devices and the central device are designed monolithically (See Figs. 15 – 27, See Col. 3, lines 23 – 65, Col. 4, lines 20 – 29, Col. 5, lines 57 – 67 and Col. 6, lines 1 – 22 and 38 – 62), thus the reference stands.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.13. Chen et al. (CN114252820) disclose a magnetic sensor component and component. Ghaffari et al. (9,289,132) disclose a catheter balloon having stretchable integrated circuitry and sensor array. Kim et al. (KR101312553) disclose an attaching structure of a tactile sensor to a curved surface and method of attaching a tactile sensor to a curved surface. 14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 4/3/26
Prosecution Insights