Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/404,941

SENSOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 05, 2024
Examiner
KWOK, HELEN C
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1303 granted / 1611 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
1670
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1611 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. Specification The title of the invention needs to be more descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections Claims 9, 12 and 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. In claim 9, lines 10, the phrase “the light receiving device” should be changed to -- the light receiving portion -- to provide proper antecedent basis. In claim 14, lines 2-3, the phrase “the light receiving device” should be changed to -- the light receiving portion -- to provide proper antecedent basis. In claim 15, line 2, the word -- a -- should be inserted before the word “resin”. In claim 17, line 2, the word -- a -- should be inserted before the phrase “silicone resin”. 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0363464 (Shafer et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0356642 (Uedaira). With regards to claim 1, Shafer et al. discloses a system for sensing position and force comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-12, a sensor device (e.g. device as illustrated in Figure 7A) comprising a substrate 720 (e.g. base structure; paragraph [0104]); a force sensor 722 (e.g. optical sensor like a force sensor; paragraphs [0058],[0104]) on a substrate; a light emitter 422 (e.g. light emitter of optical sensor 724; paragraph [0080]; Figures 4,7A) to emit light from over the substrate; a light receiver 422A,424B (e.g. photodetectors for optical sensor 724 like a proximity sensor; paragraphs [0058],[0080]; Figures 4,7A) to receive light on the substrate, and detect proximity of an object. (See, paragraphs [0036] to [0177]). The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is an elastic cover made of an elastic material includes a first portion covering the force sensor; a second portion extending around the light emitter and the light receiver, through at least spaces between the light emitter, the light receiver, and the force sensor; a third portion coupling the first portion and the second portion to each other; the third portion in the elastic cover has a lower height from the substrate than the first and second portions. Uedaira discloses a proximity sensor comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-10, a sensor device 100 (e.g. proximity sensor; paragraph [0041]) comprising a substrate 110 (e.g. substrate; paragraph [0041]); a light emitter 120 (e.g. light emitting device; paragraph [0041]) to emit light from over the substrate; a light receiver 130 (e.g. light receiving device; paragraph [0041]) to receive light on the substrate, and detect proximity of an object; an elastic cover 140 (e.g. sealing member; paragraph [0041]) made of an elastic material (e.g. resin; paragraph [0048]) covering the light emitter and the light receiver. (See, paragraphs [0040] to [0074]). It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing an elastic cover made of an elastic material as suggested by Uedaira to cover the force sensor and the light emitter/receiver the system of Shafer et al. to have the ability to seal and protect by covering the light emitter and the light receiver without optical isolation between the light emitter and the light receiver from external interferences. (See, paragraph [0048] of Uedaira). At the same time, to have set such structural configurations and arrangement characteristics, like having the elastic cover includes a first portion covering the force sensor; a second portion extending around the light emitter and the light receiver, through at least spaces between the light emitter, the light receiver, and the force sensor; a third portion coupling the first portion and the second portion to each other; the third portion in the elastic cover has a lower height from the substrate than the first and second portions, as presently claimed, are considered to have been a matter of design and choice possibilities to the manufacturer that would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since providing different dimensions/shapes of the elastic cover to cover the force sensor and the light emitter/receiver would reduce the cost where unnecessary elastic cover is not deemed necessary in the sensor device without departing from the scope of the invention and would not change and/or altering the operation and/or function of the elastic cover, namely to cover and protect the force sensor and the light emitter/receiver in the sensor device. With regards to claims 2-7, as set forth above, to have set such structural configurations and arrangement characteristics as in these claims are considered to have been a matter of design and choice possibilities to the manufacturer that would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since providing different dimensions/shapes of the elastic cover to cover the force sensor and the light emitter/receiver would reduce the cost where unnecessary elastic cover is not deemed necessary in the sensor device without departing from the scope of the invention and would not change and/or altering the operation and/or function of the elastic cover, namely to cover and protect the force sensor and the light emitter/receiver in the sensor device. With regards to claim 8, Shafer et al. further discloses the substrate 420 has flexibility (e.g. flexibility due to the spring element 430; paragraph [0080]) at at least a portion between the first portion and the second portion in the elastic cover. With regards to claim 9, Shafer et al. further discloses the light emitter 422 includes a light emitting portion; a first optical portion to direct light emitted from the light emitting portion to a direction away from the first portion; the light receiver 424A,424B includes a light receiving portion; a second optical portion to direct light incident on the light receiving device to a direction away from the first portion. (See, paragraphs [0080] to [0086]). With regards to claim 10, Shafer et al. further discloses the force sensor 722 includes a light emitting portion separate from the light emitter; a light receiving portion separate from the light receiver; a light emission control circuit 108 (e.g. controller; paragraphs [0055],[0143] to 90146],[0086]) to control the light emitter and the light emitting portion of the force sensor; a light reception control circuit (e.g. controller; paragraphs [0055],[0143] to [0146],[0086]) to control the light receiver and the light receiving portion of the force sensor. With regards to claim 11, Shafer et al. further discloses the substrate 420 is rigid. (See, paragraph [0080]). With regards to claim 12, Shafer et al. further discloses the light emitter 420 includes a light emitting diode (e.g. light emitting diode; paragraph [0084]). With regards to claim 13, Shafer et al. further discloses the light emitter 420 includes a light emitting diode (e.g. light emitting diode; paragraph [0084]). With regards to claim 14, Uedaira further discloses the light receiver 130 includes a sealant sealing 140 (e.g. sealing member; paragraph [0041]) the light receiving device. With regards to claim 15, Uedaira further discloses the sealant is resin having transparency to light. (See, paragraph [0048]). With regards to claim 16, Shafer et al. further discloses the light receiving portion 424A,424B includes at least one photodiode (e.g. photodiodes; paragraph [0085]). With regards to claim 17, Uedaira further discloses the elastic material is silicone resin. (See, paragraph [0048]). With regards to claim 18, Uedaira does not disclose the elastic cover has a Shore A hardness of higher than or equal to about 20 and lower than or equal to about 80. However, to have set such test characteristics as in the claim is considered to have been a matter of design and choice possibilities to the manufacturer to have the ability to provide a more efficient and enhanced elastic cover to protect the force sensor and the light emitter/receiver in the sensor device that would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited, particularly Correll, Halibritter, Haas, Dietzel, Watanabe, Kato and Chua, are related to systems having at least one of an optical sensor and a proximity sensor having a light emitter to emit light and a light receiver to receive light. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 EST. 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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. /HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 14, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 25, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 25, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590918
CAPACITIVE GAS SENSOR AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591239
SYSTEM, METHOD, AND APPARATUS FOR INSPECTING A SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584785
DISTRIBUTED ACOUSTIC SENSING (DAS) SYSTEM FOR ACOUSTIC EVENT DETECTION BASED UPON COVARIANCE MATRICES AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576603
Monitoring Cable Integrity During Pipeline Manufacture
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578499
LAND SUBSIDENCE DETECTION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+6.5%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1611 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month