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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 12, and 14-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-5, and 7-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 11645489 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are obvious variants of the patented claims. The following is an example for comparing claims of the instant application and claims of U.S. Patent No. US 11645489 B2:
Instant application
U.S. Patent No. US 11645489 B2
1. An impact indicator, comprising:
a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device comprising an element movable from a first position to a second position in response to receipt by the element of an impact event, the MEMS device further comprising a first circuitry configured to change from a first state to a second state in response to movement of the element from the first position to the second position, the first circuitry prevented from returning to the first state in response to changing to the second state;
a second circuitry coupled to the first circuitry, the second circuitry configured to output a value indicating that the element is in the second position; and
a removable activator element having a portion extending through an opening formed in the element and spaced apart from the element, the activator element configured to enable movement of the element from the first position toward the second position without reaching the second position until removal of the activator element from the MEMS device.
Also see claim 8 and 15.
1. An impact indicator, comprising:
a micro-sensor communicatively coupled to the communications module inlay for detecting an impact event, the micro-sensor having irreversible detection circuitry to detect the actuation status;
a substrate having a communications module inlay to communicate an actuation status of the indicator; and
an activator element to maintain the micro-sensor in a non-reactive state until removal of the activator element from the micro-sensor, wherein the activator element includes a retention element coupled to an obstructer, wherein removal of the retention element from the indicator causes removal of the obstructer from the micro-sensor.
5. An impact indicator, comprising:
a micro-sensor activatable in response to receipt by the micro-sensor of an impact event, the micro-sensor including detection circuitry changeable from a first state to a second state in response to the activation of the micro-sensor, the detection circuitry prevented from returning to the first state in response to the activation; a radio-frequency identification (RFID) module coupled to the detection circuitry, wherein the RFID module outputs a value indicating that the micro-sensor has been activated; and
an activator element maintaining the micro-sensor in a non-reactive state until removal of the activator element from the micro-sensor,
wherein the activator element includes an obstructer configured to limit movement of a movable element of the micro-sensor.
Also see claim 3 and 9
4. The impact indicator of claim 1, wherein the MEMS device is formed on a silicon wafer substrate.
4. The impact indicator of claim 1, wherein the micro-sensor is formed on a wafer substrate.
8. An impact indicator, comprising:
a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel-fabricated device having a communications module inlay formed on a substrate thereof to communicate an actuated state of the impact indicator, the LCD panel-fabricated device further comprising a first circuitry configured to detect an impact event, the first circuitry being irreversible after detecting the impact event and being placed in the actuated state; and
an activator element having a portion extending through and spaced apart from at least a portion of the LCD panel-fabricated device, the activator element configured to maintain the first circuitry in a non-reactive state until removal of the activator element from the impact indicator.
9. The impact indicator of claim 8, wherein the activator element includes a retention element coupled to an obstructer, wherein the obstructer is coupled to the substrate, and wherein removal of the retention element from the impact indicator causes removal of the obstructer from the substrate.
Also see claims 1 and 15.
5. An impact indicator, comprising:
a micro-sensor activatable in response to receipt by the micro-sensor of an impact event, the micro-sensor including detection circuitry changeable from a first state to a second state in response to the activation of the micro-sensor, the detection circuitry prevented from returning to the first state in response to the activation; a radio-frequency identification (RFID) module coupled to the detection circuitry, wherein the RFID module outputs a value indicating that the micro-sensor has been activated; and
an activator element maintaining the micro-sensor in a non-reactive state until removal of the activator element from the micro-sensor,
wherein the activator element includes an obstructer configured to limit movement of a movable element of the micro-sensor.
7. The impact indicator of claim 5, wherein the micro-sensor is formed on a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel substrate.
Also see claim 1, 3, and 9
10. The impact indicator of claim 9, wherein the obstructer is adhesively coupled to the retention element.
2. The impact indicator of claim 1, wherein the obstructer is adhesively coupled to the retention element.
12. The impact indicator of claim 8, wherein the LCD panel-fabricated device comprises at least one beam configured to fracture upon receipt of the impact event.
14. The impact indicator of claim 12, wherein the at least one beam is coupled to a movable mass element.
10. The impact indicator of claim 5, wherein the micro-sensor includes a mass element coupled to at least one beam element, wherein the at least one beam element fractures in response to the micro-sensor experiencing the impact event.
11. The impact indicator of claim 10, wherein the detection circuitry is formed on the at least one beam element.
Claim 15-17.
See claims 1, 3, 5 and 7-9.
18. The impact indicator of claim 15, wherein the activator element includes an obstructer extending through a movable element of the at least one MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device.
9. The impact indicator of claim 5, wherein the obstructer extends through the movable element of the micro-sensor.
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 8-20 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.
Claim 8 recites, inter alia, “an activator element having a portion extending through and spaced apart from at least a portion of the LCD panel-fabricated device ….” The phrase “extending through” is ambiguous because the claim does not identify what structure is being extended through (e.g., through an opening in the LCD panel-fabricated device itself, through an opening in a housing/wall, or through an intervening substrate/clearance region). Further, the phrase “spaced apart from at least a portion” is also ambiguous because it does not specify which portion of the LCD panel-fabricated device is spaced apart from the activator portion, nor does it define the required structural relationship or degree of separation. As written, the activator portion could simultaneously contact one portion of the device while being spaced from another portion, or could be spaced from all portions, and the claim provides no objective boundaries for determining what configurations fall within the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 8 cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 8, since they depend from claim 8 and incorporate the indefinite limitation “an activator element having a portion extending through and spaced apart from at least a portion of the LCD panel-fabricated device.”
Claim 15 recites, inter alia, “an activator element having a portion extending through and spaced apart from at least a portion of the at least one MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device ….” The phrase “extending through” is ambiguous because the claim does not identify what structure the activator portion extends through (e.g., through an opening formed in the MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device, through an opening in an intervening housing/wall, or through a clearance region adjacent the device). Further, the phrase “spaced apart from at least a portion” is ambiguous because it fails to specify which portion of the MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device is spaced apart from the activator portion and does not provide objective boundaries for the required structural relationship. As written, the activator portion could contact one portion of the device while being spaced from another portion, or could be spaced from all portions, and the claim provides no clear standard for determining what configurations fall within the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 15 cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 15, since they depend therefrom and incorporate the indefinite limitation “an activator element having a portion extending through and spaced apart from at least a portion of the at least one MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device.”
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 1, 2, 4-7 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranz et al. (US 20060220803 A1) in view of Robinson (US 6321654 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kranz discloses an impact indicator, comprising:
a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (fig. 1; abstract “Resettable Latching MEMS Shock Sensor provides the capability of recording external shock”) comprising an element movable (fig. 1 element 1) from a first position to a second position in response to receipt by the element of an impact event ([0030] “The proof mass structure 1 includes a contact area 2 and a latch 3. Under a shock load, the inertia of the proof mass yields a force, Fg, that displaces the mass sufficiently to force the latch 3 to engage with a similar latch on a thin pawl 4 attached to the substrate via anchor 6 through pawl flexure 8. The force also causes the proof mass contact area 2 to connect with the contact 7 that is attached to the substrate via anchor 6 through contact flexure 9. After latching, the contacts remain closed, and the shock sensor can then be interrogated by external circuitry (not illustrated).”), the MEMS device further comprising a first circuitry configured to change from a first state to a second state in response to movement of the element from the first position to the second position ([0030] “The proof mass structure 1 includes a contact area 2 and a latch 3. Under a shock load, the inertia of the proof mass yields a force, Fg, that displaces the mass sufficiently to force the latch 3 to engage with a similar latch on a thin pawl 4 attached to the substrate via anchor 6 through pawl flexure 8. The force also causes the proof mass contact area 2 to connect with the contact 7 that is attached to the substrate via anchor 6 through contact flexure 9. After latching, the contacts remain closed, and the shock sensor can then be interrogated by external circuitry (not illustrated).”), the first circuitry prevented from returning to the first state in response to changing to the second state ([0030] “After latching, the contacts remain closed,”);
a second circuitry coupled to the first circuitry, the second circuitry configured to output a value indicating that the element is in the second position ([0030] “After latching, the contacts remain closed, and the shock sensor can then be interrogated by external circuitry (not illustrated).”; [0043] “the shock sensor is used to wake up a microcontroller in an embedded sensing application. In other embodiments, the device is used in standalone applications where the sensor is connected to an RFID tag or other transmitter for remote determination of the shock environment experienced by shipping containers and products.”).
However, Kranz does not expressly disclose a removable activator element having a portion extending through an opening formed in the element and spaced apart from the element, the activator element configured to enable movement of the element from the first position toward the second position without reaching the second position until removal of the activator element from the MEMS device.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Robinson teaches a MEMS latch/release device including a removable linchpin 7 that restrains movement of a movable slider member 1. Specifically, Robinson discloses that the linchpin 7 is positioned within and extends through an opening or space defined by the feet 5 of the movable slider member 1, such that the slider member cannot advance or move while the linchpin is present (Robinson, Figs. 1A–1C; col 4 ln 66 to col 5 ln 56). Robinson further teaches that removal of the linchpin enables the movable member to move from its locked position. Robinson additionally discloses that the linchpin 7 is a separate and removable component distinct from the movable element, and thus is spaced apart from the movable element except at points of contact necessary to restrain movement. Accordingly, Robinson expressly teaches a removable activator element having a portion extending through an opening formed in a movable element and maintaining the movable element in a first position until removal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS impact indicator of Kranz to incorporate the removable linchpin structure of Robinson in order to maintain the movable element in a first position until deliberate removal of the activator element, thereby preventing premature actuation and providing controlled arming of the device (as suggested in figs. 1A-1C, col 4 In 66 to col 5 ln 56, and col 6 ln 26-30 of Robinson).
Regarding claim 2, Kranz in view of Robinson discloses the impact indicator of claim 1, wherein the MEMS device includes a substrate having the element movably coupled thereto, and wherein the activator element is removably coupled to the substrate (Robinson figs. 1A-1C and col 4 In 66 to col 5 ln 25).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kranz in view of Robinson discloses the impact indicator of claim 1, wherein the MEMS device is formed on a silicon wafer substrate (Kranz [0029] and [0032]).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Kranz in view of Robinson discloses the impact indicator of claim 1, wherein the second circuitry is formed on a substrate and comprising an antenna formed on the substrate, and wherein the MEMS device is adhered to the substrate (Kranz [0043]).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kranz in view of Robinson discloses the impact indicator of claim 5, wherein the second circuitry comprises radio frequency identification (RFID) circuitry (Kranz [0043]).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Kranz in view of Robinson discloses the impact indicator of claim 1, wherein the second circuitry is configured to wirelessly output the value indicating that the element is in the second position (Kranz [0030] and [0043]-[0044]).
Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Kranz disclose an impact indicator (fig. 1), comprising:
a substrate ([0029] “the invention is fabricated in a thick layer of silicon”; [0032] “the starting material is a silicon-on-insulator ("SOI") wafer 26”) having a radio frequency identification (RFID) inlay disposed thereon and forming an antenna, the substrate further comprising RFID circuitry coupled to the antenna ([0043] “the sensor is connected to an RFID tag”);
at least one microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device or liquid crystal display (LCD) panel-fabricated device mounted to the substrate (fig. 1; abstract “Resettable Latching MEMS Shock Sensor provides the capability of recording external shock”) and communicatively coupled to the RFID circuitry by at least one lead formed on the substrate ([0030] “After latching, the contacts remain closed, and the shock sensor can then be interrogated by external circuitry (not illustrated).”; [0043] “the shock sensor is used to wake up a microcontroller in an embedded sensing application. In other embodiments, the device is used in standalone applications where the sensor is connected to an RFID tag or other transmitter for remote determination of the shock environment experienced by shipping containers and products.”; [0044] “outputs could be connected to microcontroller interrupt lines, to a wireless transceiver, to a large circuit network that performs some function, or a number of other connection and circuits”), the at least one MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device comprising detection circuitry to enter an actuated state in response to receipt by the at least one MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device of an impact event, the detection circuitry irreversible from the actuated state ([0030] “The proof mass structure 1 includes a contact area 2 and a latch 3. Under a shock load, the inertia of the proof mass yields a force, Fg, that displaces the mass sufficiently to force the latch 3 to engage with a similar latch on a thin pawl 4 attached to the substrate via anchor 6 through pawl flexure 8. The force also causes the proof mass contact area 2 to connect with the contact 7 that is attached to the substrate via anchor 6 through contact flexure 9. After latching, the contacts remain closed, and the shock sensor can then be interrogated by external circuitry (not illustrated).”)
However, Kranz does not expressly disclose and an activator element having a portion extending through and spaced apart from at least a portion of the at least one MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device, the activator element configured to maintain the at least one MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device in a non-reactive state until removal of the activator element from the impact indicator.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Robinson teaches a MEMS latch/release device including a removable linchpin 7 that is positioned within and extends through an opening/space associated with the movable portion of the device (e.g., defined by feet 5 of slider member 1), such that the movable member is restrained and cannot move/advance while the linchpin is present (Robinson, Figs. 1A–1C; col 4 ln 66 to col 5 ln 56). Robinson further teaches that removal of the linchpin enables movement of the member, i.e., permits actuation. Thus, Robinson teaches an activator element having a portion extending through the device structure and configured to maintain the device in a non-reactive (non-actuated) state until removal. Robinson additionally discloses that the linchpin 7 is a separate, removable component distinct from the device, and therefore “spaced apart from” the device except at points of contact necessary to restrain movement. Accordingly, Robinson teaches the claimed “portion extending through” and “spaced apart” relationship as well as the “maintain in a non-reactive state until removal” functionality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impact indicator of Kranz to incorporate Robinson’s removable linchpin structure to prevent premature actuation and provide controlled arming by maintaining the MEMS device in a non-reactive state until deliberate removal of the activator element (as suggested in figs. 1A-1C, col 4 In 66 to col 5 ln 56, and col 6 ln 26-30 of Robinson).
Regarding claim 16, Kranz in view of Robinson discloses the impact indicator of claim 15, wherein the activator element includes an obstructer coupled to the substrate and configured to limit movement of a movable element of the at least one MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device (Kranz fig. 1; also see Robinson figs. 1A-1C).
Same motivation to combine as claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Kranz in view of Robinson discloses the impact indicator of claim 16, wherein the activator element includes a retention element coupled to the obstructer, wherein removal of the retention element from the impact indicator causes removal of the obstructer from the at least one MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device (Kranz fig. 1; also see Robinson figs. 1A-1C).
Same motivation to combine as claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, Kranz in view of Robinson discloses the impact indicator of claim 15, wherein the activator element includes an obstructer extending through a movable element of the at least one MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device (Kranz fig. 1; also see Robinson figs. 1A-1C).
Same motivation to combine as claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, Kranz in view of Robinson discloses the impact indicator of claim 15, further comprising an upper wall and a lower wall, and wherein the substrate is disposed between the upper wall and the lower wall (Kran fig. 1-2F), and wherein the activator element is adhered to the upper wall (Kranz fig. 1; also see Robinson fig. 1A-1C).
Same motivation to combine as claim 15.
Claims 8-9, 11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranz et al. (US 20060220803 A1) in view of Robinson (US 6321654 B1) and Klejwa (IEEE article, “A Reel-to-Reel Compatible Printed Accelerometer” cited in IDS 08/27/2024).
Regarding claim 8, Kranz disclose an impact indicator, comprising:
a micro-sensor (fig. 1; abstract “Resettable Latching MEMS Shock Sensor provides the capability of recording external shock”) having a communications module inlay formed on a substrate ( [0029] silicon substrate ) thereof to communicate an actuated state of the impact indicator ([0030] “After latching, the contacts remain closed, and the shock sensor can then be interrogated by external circuitry (not illustrated).”; [0043] “the shock sensor is used to wake up a microcontroller in an embedded sensing application. In other embodiments, the device is used in standalone applications where the sensor is connected to an RFID tag or other transmitter for remote determination of the shock environment experienced by shipping containers and products.”; [0044] “wireless transceiver”), the micro-sensor further comprising a first circuitry configured to detect an impact event, the first circuitry being irreversible after detecting the impact event and being placed in the actuated state ([0030] “The proof mass structure 1 includes a contact area 2 and a latch 3. Under a shock load, the inertia of the proof mass yields a force, Fg, that displaces the mass sufficiently to force the latch 3 to engage with a similar latch on a thin pawl 4 attached to the substrate via anchor 6 through pawl flexure 8. The force also causes the proof mass contact area 2 to connect with the contact 7 that is attached to the substrate via anchor 6 through contact flexure 9. After latching, the contacts remain closed, and the shock sensor can then be interrogated by external circuitry (not illustrated).”).
However, Kranz does not expressly disclose the micro-sensor is configured as a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel-fabricated device; and an activator element having a portion extending through and spaced apart from at least a portion of the LCD panel-fabricated device, the activator element configured to maintain the first circuitry in a non-reactive state until removal of the activator element from the impact indicator.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Robinson teaches a latch/release device including a removable linchpin 7 (activator element) that physically restrains a movable member (slider member 1) such that the member cannot advance/move while the linchpin is present. Robinson teaches that the linchpin 7 is positioned within and through an opening/space defined by device structure (e.g., between feet 5 of the slider member 1 and a catch 6), thereby maintaining the movable member in a locked state until the linchpin is removed (see Robinson Figs. 1A–1C; col 4 ln 66 to col 5 ln 56). Robinson further discloses that removal of the linchpin enables the movable member to move, i.e., permits actuation. Robinson additionally teaches that linchpin 7 is a separate, removable component distinct from the device structure, and therefore is spaced apart from at least a portion of the device except where it contacts the device to restrain movement. Accordingly, Robinson teaches an activator element having a portion extending through device structure and configured to maintain the device in a non-reactive (non-actuated) state until removal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Robinson’s removable linchpin structure into the impact indicator device of Kranz to prevent premature actuation and provide controlled arming by maintaining the device in a non-reactive state until deliberate removal of the activator element (as suggested in figs. 1A-1C, col 4 In 66 to col 5 ln 56, and col 6 ln 26-30 of Robinson).
However, Kranz in view of Robinson does not expressly disclose the micro-sensor is configured as a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel-fabricated device; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Klejwa teaches micro-sensor is formed as an LCD panel substrate. See Introduction and Background sections. The claim does not require the activator element to be specific to LCD fabrication; rather, it recites a removable structure positioned relative to the device to prevent actuation until removal, which Robinson teaches for microfabricated devices and which is readily applicable to the LCD panel-fabricated device taught by Klejwa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a micro-sensor configured as a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel-fabricated device as taught by Klejwa in the device taught by Kranz in view of Robinson. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide low-cost device fabrication (as suggested in the Introduction of Klejwa).
Regarding claim 9, Kranz in view of Robinson and Klejwa discloses the impact indicator of claim 8, wherein the activator element includes a retention element coupled to an obstructer, wherein the obstructer is coupled to the substrate, and wherein removal of the retention element from the impact indicator causes removal of the obstructer from the substrate (Robinson figs. 1A-1C).
Same motivation to combine as claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Kranz in view of Robinson and Klejwa discloses the impact indicator of claim 8, wherein the first circuitry is adhered to the substrate (Kranz figs. 2A-2F; [0029]-[0032]).
Same motivation to combine as claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, Kranz in view of Robinson and Klejwa discloses the impact indicator of claim 12, wherein the at least one beam comprises a conductive element, and wherein the fracture of the at least one beam causes a discontinuity in the conductive element (Kranz fig. 1; [0030]).
Same motivation to combine as claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Kranz in view of Robinson and Klejwa discloses the impact indicator of claim 12, wherein the at least one beam is coupled to a movable mass element (Kranz fig. 1; [0030]).
Same motivation to combine as claim 8.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranz et al. (US 20060220803 A1) in view of Robinson (US 6321654 B1) and Klejwa (IEEE article, “A Reel-to-Reel Compatible Printed Accelerometer” cited in IDS 08/27/2024) as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Branch (US 20140196294 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kranz in view of Robinson and Klejwa discloses the impact indicator of Claim 9, but does not expressly disclose wherein the obstructer is adhesively coupled to the retention element.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Branch teaches that retention element 30 comprises an adhesive-backed label removably attached to arming plug 26; thus, the obstructer (arming plug 26) is adhesively coupled to the retention element (retention element 30). See Branch fig.2 and [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhesively couple the obstructer to the retention element as taught by Branch in the impact indicator of Kranz in view of Robinson in order to provide a reliable removable retention/arming arrangement that maintains the device in a non-reactive state until deliberate removal, and to improve manufacturability and user operation by enabling a single removal action (removal of the retention element) to also remove the obstructer, yielding predictable results.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranz et al. (US 20060220803 A1) in view of Robinson (US 6321654 B1) and Klejwa (IEEE article, “A Reel-to-Reel Compatible Printed Accelerometer” cited in IDS 08/27/2024) as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Frazier (US 20050128095 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kranz in view of Robinson and Klejwa discloses the impact indicator of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose wherein the LCD panel-fabricated device comprises at least one beam configured to fracture upon receipt of the impact event.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Frazier teaches an impact indicator/damage indicator in which, when impacted, a structural portion ruptures (e.g., at frangible lines) and a frangible conductor breaks as a result of the impact, thereby providing an irreversible indication of the impact event. Such a frangible conductor/portion corresponds to the claimed “beam configured to fracture upon receipt of the impact event.” See Frazier [0027]-[0028], [0031]-[0033], and [0037]-[0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LCD panel-fabricated impact indicator of Kranz in view of Robinson and Klejwa to include at least one frangible beam/conductor configured to fracture upon impact as taught by Frazier, in order to provide a simple, irreversible impact indication (e.g., by creating a discontinuity upon impact) and thereby improve reliability of post-impact state detection, yielding predictable results.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranz et al. (US 20060220803 A1) in view of Robinson (US 6321654 B1), as applied to claim 19 above, further in view of Branch (US 20140196294 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kranz in view of Robinson discloses the impact indicator of claim 19, but does not expressly disclose wherein the activator element includes a retention element adhesively coupled to the upper wall.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Branch teaches an indicator device having a cover/rear member 16/22 (i.e., a wall of the device) and a retention element 30/100 that comprises an adhesive layer/material, and further teaches that the retention element (adhesive layer) may be located on the cover/rear member. Accordingly, Branch teaches a retention element adhesively coupled to an upper wall (cover/rear member). See figs. 1-4, [0019], and [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the impact indicator of Kranz in view of Robinson to include a retention element adhesively coupled to the upper wall as taught by Branch in order to provide a reliable removable retention/arming arrangement and improve manufacturability and user operation by enabling predictable attachment of the retention element to the housing wall while maintaining controlled activation/removal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejection have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the amendment to claim 1 renders the claim patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,645,489 B2. This assertion is not persuasive. The newly added limitation reciting “a removable activator element having a portion extending through an opening formed in the element” does not patentably distinguish the claim from the ’489 patent. The ’489 patent expressly discloses an obstructer configured to extend through a movable element to limit movement until removal (e.g., see claims 3 and 9 of the ’489 patent). Thus, the amended limitation is fully encompassed by the claims of the ’489 patent. Further, the recitation that the activator element is “spaced apart from the element” represents an obvious structural characteristic of an obstructer configured to limit movement and does not impart patentable distinction. The functional relationship between the movable element and the removable activator element remains the same as that claimed in the ’489 patent. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,645,489 B2. Applicant similarly argues the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of clams 8 and 15. This is not persuasive for the same reasons as claim 1. The rejection based on nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting is maintained. A terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 would overcome this rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that Robinson is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the claimed invention concerns microfabricated mechanical structures used to restrain and then release a movable element (i.e., a removable activator/obstructer that prevents actuation until removal). Robinson is directed to microfabricated latch/release mechanisms including a removable restraining member (linchpin) that locks a movable member until removal. Thus, Robinson is from the same general field of endeavor of microfabricated (MEMS-type) mechanical retention/release structures, regardless of ultimate end-use. Even if Applicant characterizes Robinson as a different end-use, Robinson is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced here: preventing premature actuation and providing controlled arming/release of a micro-device having a movable member. Robinson directly teaches a removable linchpin that restrains movement of a movable member until removal, which would logically commend itself to an inventor seeking a removable activator/obstructer to prevent premature actuation. Accordingly, Robinson is analogous art under MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that applied art does not teach or suggest the amended limitation " a removable activator element having a portion extending through an opening formed in the element and spaced apart from the element"; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection relies on Robinson for this limitation. Robinson discloses a removable linchpin 7 positioned within/through an opening or space associated with the movable structure (e.g., between the feet 5 of slider member 1 and a catch 6), such that the slider member cannot advance/move while the linchpin is present; removal of the linchpin enables movement (Robinson col 4 ln 66 to col 5 ln 56; Figs. 1A–1C). The linchpin is a separate, removable component distinct from the movable member and is therefore “spaced apart” from at least a portion of the element except at points of contact necessary to restrain movement. Thus, Robinson teaches the claimed removable activator element relationship and functionality (prevents reaching the actuated position until removal). Kranz continues to teach the impact-responsive MEMS device and irreversible actuation circuitry. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding claim 8, applicant argues that applied art does not teach or suggest the amended limitation "an activator element having a portion extending through and spaced apart from at least a portion of the LCD panel-fabricated device"; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant similarly argues Robinson does not teach the amended activator element limitation of claim 8. This is not persuasive for the same reasons as claim 1. Robinson teaches a removable linchpin 7 that extends through/within an opening or space defined by device structure and physically restrains movement until removal (ol 4 ln 66 to col 5 ln 56; Figs. 1A–1C). While restrained, the movable member cannot move to an actuated condition; thus, the circuitry associated with actuation is maintained in a non-reactive state until removal. The linchpin is structurally distinct and removable, satisfying “spaced apart” as discussed above. Klejwa is relied upon for the LCD panel-fabricated device aspect. Claim 8 does not require the activator element to be specific to LCD fabrication; rather, it recites a removable restraint positioned relative to the device, which Robinson teaches and which is readily applicable to the LCD panel-fabricated implementation taught by Klejwa. Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 is maintained.
Regarding claim 15, applicant argues that applied art does not teach or suggest the amended limitation "an activator element having a portion extending through and spaced apart from at least a portion of the at least one MEMS device or LCD panel-fabricated device"; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues claim 15 is patentable for at least the same reasons as claim 1. This is not persuasive for the same reasons as claim 1. Robinson discloses a removable linchpin 7 positioned within/through an opening or space associated with the movable structure (e.g., between the feet 5 of slider member 1 and a catch 6), such that the slider member cannot advance/move while the linchpin is present; removal of the linchpin enables movement (Robinson col 4 ln 66 to col 5 ln 56; Figs. 1A–1C). The linchpin is a separate, removable component distinct from the movable member and is therefore “spaced apart” from at least a portion of the element except at points of contact necessary to restrain movement. Thus, Robinson teaches the claimed removable activator element relationship and functionality (prevents reaching the actuated position until removal). Kranz continues to teach the impact-responsive MEMS device and irreversible actuation circuitry. Therefore, the rejection of claim 15 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685