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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on02/23/2024 and 10/21/2025are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “an adhesive layer disposed over the conductive primer layer” which is identically recited in parent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “two or more substrates, each partitioned from one another and act like an insulator; two or more conductive primer layers that are correspondingly disposed over the substrates and partitioned; an adhesive layer disposed over the conductive primer layers; a surface layer disposed over the adhesive layer; and a load connected on one side to the one of the conductive primer layers and connected on another side to one of the other conductive primer layers partitioned from the one of the conductive primer layers, wherein each conductive primer layer disposed over each substrate is partitioned to be an electrically divided region” (Claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11-14 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: how the two substrates are connected to the two conductive primer layers and the adhesive layer.
The claim recites “two or more substrates, each partitioned from one another and act like an insulator; two or more conductive primer layers that are correspondingly disposed over the substrates and partitioned; an adhesive layer disposed over the conductive primer layers; a surface layer disposed over the adhesive layer; and a load connected on one side to the one of the conductive primer layers and connected on another side to one of the other conductive primer layers partitioned from the one of the conductive primer layers, wherein each conductive primer layer disposed over each substrate is partitioned to be an electrically divided region.” Does each of the two substrates have two or more conductive primer layers? Is there a single adhesive layer over all the conductive primer layers? Clarification of the structure of the claimed detecting device is needed fore further examination.
Claims 12-14 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, deficiency from parent claim 11.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heinrich et al. [US 2018/0348900], Applicant cited prior art.
Claim 1, Heinrich et al. discloses a triboelectric film laminate [figure 3], comprising: a substrate [2] which acts like an insulator [glass; paragraph 0253]; a conductive primer layer [3; paragraph 0255] is disposed over the substrate; an adhesive layer [11; paragraph 0304] disposed over the conductive primer layer; and a surface layer [12a] disposed over the adhesive layer, the surface layer [12a] being a decorative film [paragraph 0304].
Claim 2, Heinrich et al. discloses the triboelectric film laminate according to claim 1, further comprising: an adhesive layer [11] disposed over the conductive primer layer [3], wherein the conductive primer layer [3] is partitioned to be an electrically divided region [figure 3, layer 3 is divided into various pads separated by layer 11].
Claim 8, a manufacturing method of a detection device is inherent in the product structure of the triboelectric film laminate as disclosed by Heinrich et al. in claim 1 previously.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinrich et al. [US 2018/0348900], Applicant cited prior art.
Claim 3, Heinrich et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the triboelectric film laminate is fireproof or noncombustible. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the appropriate materials to make the device fireproof or noncombustible as needed, since applicant has not disclosed that being fireproof or noncombustible solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the device as disclosed by Heinrich et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837