DETAILED ACTION
for
THIN FILM SENSOR EXHIBITING ENHANCED SENSITIVITY
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 03/29/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Coating System for Use as Thin Film Sensor Exhibiting Enhanced Sensitivity.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears the “substrate” as claimed in claim 1 do not have a corresponding reference numeral in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the claims fail to separate each claimed element or step by a line indentation as per 37 CFR 1.75(i); MPEP 608.01(i).
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "i.e." in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "i.e." in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claims 2-20, the claims are rejected for depending on rejected claim 1.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myrick (US 10,941,500) “Submitted by Applicant on IDS”.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Myrick discloses a coating system and method to be used as thin film sensor (see abstract), including a piezoresistive sensor element [(110), diamond-like carbon (DLC) is piezoresistive], wherein the piezoresistive sensor element (110) is a layer embedded in the coating system (Fig. 1), wherein the coating system is deposited on a surface of a substrate wherein (Col. 5, lines 19-21 & Col. 30 lines 55-57): the piezoresistive sensor element (100) comprises at least one hydrogen free tetrahedral amorphous carbon coating doped with X, i.e. a ta-C:X coating layer (Col. 41, lines 22-24), where X is one or more chemical elements selected from the elements groups 13 and 15 of the periodic table of elements (Col. 10, lines 36-40), wherein the ta-C:X coating layer exhibits an anisotropic gage factor (Col. 39, lines 33-36).
Regarding claim 2, Myrick further discloses the ta-C:X coating layer has an anisotropic gage factor comprising a vertical gage factor and a longitudinal factor, where the vertical factor is at least ten times higher than the longitudinal gage factor (Col. 32, lines 20-29).
Regarding claim 3, Myrick further discloses wherein the at least one ta-C:X coating layer exhibits: a hardness HIT determined by nanoindentation techniques of at least 29 GPa (Col. 9, lines 36-41), an elastic modulus EIT determined by nanoindentation techniques of at least 300 GPa (Col. 20, lines 54-59), a carbon content determined by SIMS analysis of at least 90 at, and a content of X determined by SIMS analysis of at least 2 at (Col. 22, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 4, Myrick further discloses wherein X comprises: nitrogen N (Col. 10, lines 36-42).
Regarding claim 5, Myrick further discloses the nitrogen content in the of at least one ta-C:X coating layer is in a range from 2 at. % to 10 at (Col. 19, lines 13-18).
Regarding claim 6, Myrick further discloses wherein X is nitrogen, i.e. ta-C-X is ta-C: N (Col. 10, lines 36-40).
Regarding claim 7, Myrick further discloses wherein the N content in the ta-C: N coating layer in is a range from 6.5 at. % to 7.5 at. % (Col. 21, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 8, Myrick further discloses the piezoresistive sensor element (110) is contacted by electrically conductive connectors in such a manner that the piezoresistive sensor element (110) provides an electrical signal as a function of strain from the substrate surface “FIG. 1 is an electrodeposition system 100 for electrodepositing diamondlike carbon”.
Regarding claim 9, Myrick further discloses wherein the coating system comprises an under electrical insulating layer (Col. 10, lines 28-32) provided between the substrate surface and the piezoresistive sensor element (110).
Regarding claim 10, Myrick further discloses wherein the coating system comprises an adhesive layer provided directly onto the substrate surface (Col. 4, lines 22-25).
Regarding claim 11, Myrick further discloses wherein the coating system comprises an upper electrical insulating layer (Col. 10, lines 28-32) provided directly onto the piezoresistive sensor element (110, Col. 10 lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 12, Myrick further discloses wherein the coating system comprises at least one functional layer (Col. 28, lines 36-60).
Regarding claim 13, Myrick further discloses a thin film sensor comprising a coating system to be used for determining strain (Col. 32, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 14, Myrick further discloses a tool comprising a thin film sensor incorporated tool for determining the strain “FIG. 1 is an electrodeposition system 100 for electrodepositing diamondlike carbon”.
Regarding claim 16, Myrick further discloses wherein X is one or more from B, Al, Ga, In, TI, N and P (Col. 10, lines 38-46).
Regarding claim 17, Myrick further discloses wherein the longitudinal gage factor in a range from 4 to 20, and the vertical gage factor in a range from 100 to 450 (Col. 19, lines 41-49).
Regarding claim 18, Myrick further discloses wherein the at least one functional layer is a DLC coating layer (Col. 9, lines 10-16).
Regarding claim 19, Myrick further discloses wherein the at least one ta-C:X coating layer exhibits: a hardness HIT determined by nanoindentation techniques in a range from 30 GPa and 45 GPa (Col. 9, lines 36-41), an elastic modulus EIT determined by nanoindentation techniques in a range from 330 GPa and 430 GPa (Col. 20, lines 54-59), a carbon content determined by SIMS analysis in a range from 91 at. % and 98 at. %, and a content of X determined by SIMS analysis in a range from 2 at. % to 20 at. % (Col. 22, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 20, Myrick further discloses wherein the nitrogen content in the of at least one ta-C:X coating layer is in a range from 6.5 at % to 8.5 at. % (Col. 10, lines 36-46).
Conclusion
Pedder et al. discloses an electronic device includes one or more transparent strain sensors configured to detect strain based on an amount of force applied to the electronic device, a component in the electronic device, and/or an input surface of the electronic device. The one or more transparent strain sensors may be included in or positioned below an input surface that is configured to receive touch inputs from a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855