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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 11/14/2023.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, 16-20 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-25, 30-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura et al. (Pat. No. US 9,752,940) (hereafter Ogura) in view of Lim et al. (Pat. No. US 10,860,129) (hereafter Lim).
Regarding claim 1, Ogura teaches a soft pressure sensor comprising:
a stretchable top electrode (i.e., second electrode 20) (see Fig. 10);
a stretchable bottom electrode (i.e., first electrode 10) (see Fig. 10);
an array of peaked structures between the stretchable top and bottom electrodes (i.e., second dielectric 32) (see Fig. 10), the peaked structures being defined by protruding regions of a continuous film (i.e., second dielectric 32 overlap the layer of first dielectric 31) (see Fig. 10) conformally overlying (i.e., second dielectric 32 positioned in a concave portion of the first electrode 10 defined by elastic protrusions 15) (see Fig. 10)
an array of stiffening electrodes on the stretchable bottom electrode (i.e., plurality of elastic protrusions 15) (see Fig. 10),
where each protruding region is in contact with the stretchable top electrode (i.e., upper surface of second dielectric 32 is flush with the top 15’ of the elastic protrusion 15 and is in contact with the second electrode via the first dielectric 31) (see Fig. 1) and a base of each stiffening electrode is in contact with the stretchable bottom electrode (i.e., base of the elastic protrusions 15 are in contact with the first electrode 10) (see Fig. 10), and
one or more spacers extending between and bonded to the stretchable top electrode and the continuous film on the stretchable bottom electrode (i.e., spacer 70) (see Fig. 10),
each of the one or more spacers being positioned outside the array of peaked structures (i.e., spacer 70 disposed between the first electrode 10 and the second electrode 20 facing each other) (see Fig. 10), a capacitance measured by the soft pressure sensor (i.e., the pressure sensing element 100 of the present disclosure is an element having a capacitance and functions as a capacitor. A change in a capacitance of the pressure sensing element 100 is caused when a load is applied thereto. The change in the capacitance enables the load to be detected) (see Column 5, lines 49-61); but does not explicitly teach that a tip of each protruding region is in contact with the stretchable top electrode and wherein a capacitance measured by the soft pressure sensor is substantially invariant under in-plane stretching.
Regarding the tip of each protruding region and the invariant capacitance, Lim teaches that a tip of each protruding region (i.e., peak sections of the dielectric layer 230-1) (see Fig. 7A-B) is in contact with the stretchable top electrode (i.e., second electrode 220-1) (see Fig. 7A-B) and wherein a capacitance measured by the soft pressure sensor is substantially invariant under in-plane stretching (i.e., a thickness TH-1S of the strain mode dielectric layer 230-1S may be substantially the same as the thickness TH-1 of the normal mode dielectric layer 230. In the electronic device 10-1, the thickness of the dielectric layer 230 may not be changed even though the external force TS is applied, namely zero thickness change) (see Column 12, line 23, to Column 14, line 67). In view of the teaching of Lim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the array of peaked structures in order to provide stable touch environment to a user even when the shape of the electronic device is deformed by the external force.
Regarding claim 2, Ogura teaches that the peaked structures have a pyramidal (i.e., second dielectric 32 having pyramidal shape) (see Fig. 10), dome-shaped, conical, or another deformable shape. Furthermore, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)).
Regarding claim 11, Ogura teaches that the one or more spacers comprise an elastomer (i.e., the spacer 70 may include an insulating resin (such as a polyester resin, an epoxy resin, or a combination thereof, for example)) (see Column 12, line 58, to Column 13, line 4).
Regarding claim 12, Ogura teaches that an elastic modulus of the first electrode 10, particularly, an elastic modulus of the elastic protrusion 15 is about 104 to 108 Pa, for example, such that the elastic protrusion 15 is gradually deformed by normal pressing force (about 1 N to 10 N, for example) applied to the pressure sensing element 100, and that the elastic modulus is able to be adjusted through a change in a relative proportion of the conductive filler to the resin component of the resin structure (see Column 9, line 57, to Column 10, line 25); but does not explicitly teach that the stiffening electrodes have a stiffness of at least about 0.3 GPa. However, the claimed range of the stiffness of at least about 0.3 GPa is a mere discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 16, Ogura teaches that an elastic modulus of the elastic protrusion 15 is about 104 to 108 Pa, for example, such that the elastic protrusion 15 is gradually deformed by normal pressing force (about 1 N to 10 N, for example) applied to the pressure sensing element 100, and that the elastic modulus is able to be adjusted through a change in a relative proportion of the conductive filler to the resin component of the resin structure (see Column 9, line 57, to Column 10, line 25); but does not explicitly teach exhibiting a pressure sensitivity of at least about 2 kPa-1 and/or a strain insensitivity of at least about 98% up to 50% strain. However, the claimed range of a pressure sensitivity of at least about 2 kPa-1 is a mere discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Claims 4-5, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura et al. (Pat. No. US 9,752,940) (hereafter Ogura) in view of Lim et al. (Pat. No. US 10,860,129) (hereafter Lim) and in further view of Li et al. (Pat. No. US 10,126,191) (hereafter Li)
Regarding claim 4, Ogura as modified by Lim as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the continuous film comprises an ionically conductive elastomer or ion gel.
Regarding the material of the continuous film, Li teaches that the continuous film comprises an ionically conductive elastomer or ion gel (i.e., the sensing material 135 needs to be both highly electrically conductive to permit a large interfacial capacitance, and possess sufficient mechanical strength to ensure structural stability. The sensing material 135 is optionally also optically transparent. Accordingly, the sensing material 135 comprises, in some embodiments, an ionic material) (see Column 5, lines 1-52). In view of the teaching of Li, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an ionic material as the continuous film in order to provide a highly responsive or sensitive device.
Regarding claim 5, Ogura teaches that the stretchable top electrode comprises a first conductive layer (i.e., second electrode 20) (see Fig. 10) on a first elastomeric layer (i.e., pressing member 60) (see Fig. 10), and the protruding region is in contact with the first conductive layer (i.e., upper surface of second dielectric 32 is flush with the top 15’ of the elastic protrusion 15 and is in contact with the second electrode via the first dielectric 31) (see Fig. 1), and wherein the stretchable bottom electrode comprises a second conductive layer (i.e., first electrode 10) (see Fig. 10) on a second elastomeric layer (i.e., supporting layer 50) (see Fig. 10), and the base of each stiffening electrode is in contact with the second conductive layer (i.e., the base of each protrusions 15 are in contact with the first electrode 10) (see Fig. 10); but Ogura as modified by Lim and Li as disclosed above does not explicitly teach the tip of each protruding region is in contact with the first conductive layer.
Regarding the tip of each protruding region, Li teaches that the stretchable top electrode comprises a first conductive layer (i.e., electrically conductive layer 130) (see Fig. 3) on a first elastomeric layer (i.e., membrane 20) (see Fig. 3), and the tip of each protruding region is in contact with the first conductive layer (i.e., tip of each sensing material 135) (see Fig. 8), and wherein the stretchable bottom electrode comprises a second conductive layer (i.e., electrically conductive layer 150) (see Fig. 3) on a second elastomeric layer (i.e., second layer 140) (see Fig. 3). In view of the teaching of Li, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the tip of each protruding region is in contact with the first conductive layer in order to adjust the sensitivity of the device, by modifying the contact area between the top electrode and the peaked portions of the dielectric.
Regarding claim 17, Ogura teaches a method of measuring or monitoring pressure (i.e., a change in a capacitance of the pressure sensing element 100 is caused when a load is applied thereto. The change in the capacitance enables the load to be detected) (see Column 5, lines 49-61), the method comprising: measuring a capacitance of the soft pressure sensor, thereby obtaining touch information during the contacting (i.e., the pressure sensing element 100 can be adjusted to exhibit high sensitivity in the low-load application section and has low sensitivity in the high-load application section or the pressure sensing element 100 can be adjusted to exhibit low sensitivity in the low-load application section and has high sensitivity in the high-load application section) (see Column 7, line 36, to Column 8, line 26); but does not explicitly teach attaching the soft pressure sensor of claim 1 to a part or an appendage of a human body or soft robot; contacting an object with the soft pressure sensor; .
Regarding the attachment, Li teaches attaching the soft pressure sensor to a part or an appendage of a human body (i.e., Like other embodiments described herein, the size and shape of the sensor 1330 can be formed to fit various body parts including curved parts such as tips of fingers) (see Column 11, line 53, to Column 12, line 23) or soft robot; contacting an object with the soft pressure sensor; measuring a capacitance of the soft pressure sensor, thereby obtaining touch information during the contacting (i.e., the sensor 1300 can be applied to surfaces made of metals and conductive polymers, but also poorer electrical conductors such as skin and other tissues, both human and animal. The contact area between the sensing material layer 1330 and the surface to which it is attached can change in response to an applied load) (see Column 11, line 53, to Column 12, line 23). In view of the teaching of Li, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attached the sensor to a finger in order to provide pressure detection on poorer electrical conductors. Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (in this case, the attaching the soft pressure sensor to a part of an appendage of a human body or a soft robot) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation (see MPEP 2114 II).
Regarding claim 20, Ogura as modified by Lim as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the capacitance is an electric double layer (EDL) capacitance. However, Li teaches that the capacitance is an electric double layer (EDL) capacitance (i.e., sensors of the invention correlate applied pressure to the interfacial capacitance of an electrical double layer (EDL) formed where the sensing material 135 contacts the electrically conductive surface 125 such that electrons on the electrically conductive surface 125 and counter ions from the sensing material 135 accumulate and attract each other at a nanoscopic distance, producing an ultrahigh unit-area capacitance) (see Column 5, line 1, to Column 6, line 9). In view of the teaching of Li, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date o the claimed invention to have used EDL capacitance in order to improve the sensitivity of the device. 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).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura et al. (Pat. No. US 9,752,940) (hereafter Ogura) in view of Lim et al. (Pat. No. US 10,860,129) (hereafter Lim) and in further view of Li et al. (Pat. No. US 10,126,191) (hereafter Li) and Ahamed et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0149987) (hereafter Ahamed)
Regarding claim 18, Ogura as modified by Lim and Li as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach transmitting the capacitance measured by the soft pressure sensor to a closed loop controller; and adjusting a position of the part or appendage with respect to the object to achieve a predetermined capacitance and thus a preset pressure.
Regarding the preset pressure, Ahamed teaches transmitting the capacitance measured by the soft pressure sensor to a closed loop controller; and adjusting a position of the part or appendage with respect to the object to achieve a predetermined capacitance and thus a preset pressure (i.e., Capacitance data was collected through a capacitance meter, where initial and changed capacitance values were recorded before and after the standardized weights were applied. The applied pressure ranged from approximately 0.5 kPa to 6 kPa, according to the range of standardized weights from 1 to 50 g. Five trials were performed per device, per pressure applied, and changes in capacitance with applied pressure were analyzed. Sensors' sensitivity was determined by calculating the slope of the curve at different pressure ranges) (see paragraph sections [0082]-[0089]). In view of the teaching of Ahamed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed calibrations in order to adjust the device’s sensitivity.
Regarding claim 19, Ogura as modified by Lim, Li, and Ahamed as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that, as the soft pressure sensor is stretched or bent to accommodate motion of the part or appendage, the capacitance measured by the soft pressure sensor is substantially unchanged. However, Lim teaches that as the soft pressure sensor is stretched or bent to accommodate motion of the part or appendage, the capacitance measured by the soft pressure sensor is substantially unchanged (i.e., a thickness TH-1S of the strain mode dielectric layer 230-1S may be substantially the same as the thickness TH-1 of the normal mode dielectric layer 230. In the electronic device 10-1, the thickness of the dielectric layer 230 may not be changed even though the external force TS is applied, namely zero thickness change) (see Column 12, line 23, to Column 14, line 67). In view of the teaching of Lim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the array of peaked structures in order to provide stable touch environment to a user even when the shape of the electronic device is deformed by the external force.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
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