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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 2, line 6, the phrase “a plurality of strain gauges” should be changed to -- the plurality of strain gauges --. In line 7, the phrase “a plurality of strain gauges” should be changed to -- the plurality of strain gauges --.
In claim 3, line 6, it appears the phrase “the seconds” should be changed to -- the second ends --. In line 10, it appears the phrase “the seconds” should be changed to -- the second ends --.
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, 3, 7 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 18/768,891 (Nakano et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed limitations and features (e.g. a flexible base, a first sensor, a second sensor, a controller, a first sensor sheet, a second sensor sheet, a plurality of strain gauges, a plurality of power supply lines, a plurality of first and second signal lines, a plurality of ground lines) in the Instant application are claimed in the copending Application of Nakano et al.. Hence, the claims in the Instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims in the Nakano et al. copending Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4-6 of copending Application No. 19/271,370 (Uehara et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed limitations and features (e.g. a flexible base, a first sensor, a second sensor, a controller, a first sensor sheet, a second sensor sheet, a plurality of strain gauges, a plurality of power supply lines, a plurality of first and second signal lines, a plurality of ground lines) in the Instant application are claimed in the copending Application of Uehara et al.. Hence, the claims in the Instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims in the Uehara et al. copending Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication titled “Skin Attachable Flexible Sensor Array For Respiratory Monitoring” by Koch et al..
With regards to claim 1, Koch et al. discloses a flexible sensor array comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-8, a strain detection device (e.g. Figures 1-3) comprising a flexible base (e.g. grey substrate in Figure 2c; Figure 1 indicates a flexible sensor array) having a first main surface (e.g. top surface of grey substrate in Figure 2c) and a second main surface (e.g. bottom surface of grey substrate in Figure 2c) opposed to the first main surface; a first sensor sheet 5 (e.g. sensor layer in Figure 4) provided on a side of the first main surface; a second sensor sheet 3 (e.g. sensor layer in Figure 4) provided on a side of the second main surface and opposed to the first sensor sheet with the base sandwiched therebetween (e.g. observed in Figures 2c,4); a controller (e.g. computer for evaluation; Figure 1) configured to drive the first sensor sheet and the second sensor sheet such that each of the first sensor sheet 5 and the second sensor sheet 3 comprises a plurality of strain gauges R1,R2,R3,R4 (e.g. strain gauges of each of the 36 sensor elements) including first ends and second ends located on a side opposite to the first ends and arranged in a row at intervals (e.g. observed in Figures 2a-2d,3); a plurality of power supply lines (e.g. power supply lines for Vin in Figures 2d,3), a plurality of ground lines (e.g. ground lines for Gnd in Figures 2d,3), a plurality of first signal lines (e.g. first signal lines for left node Vout in Figures 2d,3), and a plurality of second signal lines (e.g. second signal lines for right node Vout in Figures 2d,3), which include portions extending along the row of the plurality of strain gauges; each of the plurality of power supply lines is connected to corresponding one of the first ends of the plurality of strain gauges (e.g. observed in Figures 2d,3); each of the plurality of first signal lines is connected to corresponding one of the first ends of the plurality of strain gauges (e.g. observed in Figures 2d,3); each of the plurality of ground lines is connected to corresponding one of the second ends of the plurality of strain gauges (e.g. observed in Figures 2d,3); each of the plurality of second signal lines is connected to corresponding one of the second ends of the plurality of strain gauges (e.g. observed in Figures 2d,3); each of the plurality of strain gauges R1,R4 of the first sensor sheet is arranged to be opposed to corresponding one of the plurality of strain gauges R2,R3 of the second sensor sheet with the base sandwiched therebetween (e.g. observed in Figures 2c,4). (See, pages 138 to 144).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is each of the plurality of ground lines of the first sensor sheet is connected to corresponding one of the plurality of power supply lines of the second sensor sheet.
It would have been obvious to a 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 each of the plurality of ground lines of the first sensor sheet is connected to corresponding one of the plurality of power supply lines of the second sensor sheet is considered to have been a matter of design and choice possibilities of the operator and/or manufacturer how the connection lines are connected to the strain gauges to have the ability to give the possibility to switch the power supply thereby dramatically reducing the current assumption since Koch et al. suggests, on page 139, 2nd column, 1st paragraph and on page 144, 1st column, 2nd paragraph, the concept of design arrangements for the connection lines for the strain gauges.
With regards to claim 2, Koch et al. further discloses the controller comprises a selector sequentially applying power supply voltages to the plurality of power supply lines of the first sensor sheet, sequentially driving a plurality of strain gauges of the first sensor sheet and a plurality of strain gauges of the second sensor sheet so as to be synchronized with each other, and sequentially acquiring detection signals of the first ends and detection signals of the second ends, of the strain gauges, from the first signal lines and the second signal lines. (See, section “4. Sensor functionality and discussion” from page 141 to page 143).
With regards to claim 3, Koch et al. further discloses the controller includes a first difference detection circuit which detects a difference between detection signals of the first ends and detection signals of the second ends, of the strain gauges of the first sensor sheet, and a second difference detection circuit which detects a difference between detection signals of the first ends and detection signals of the second ends, of the strain gauges of the second sensor sheet. (See, page 139, 1st column, 1st to 7th paragraphs; page 141, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph; Figure 5)
With regards to claim 4, Koch et al. does not disclose the controller sequentially drives the plurality of strain gauges from a one-end side to the other end side of the row of the plurality of strain gauges. However, to have set such test characteristics as in the claim is considered to have been a matter of optimization and choice possibilities to the operator and/or manufacturer how to drive the strain gauges to have the ability to give the possibility to switch the power supply thereby dramatically reducing the current assumption.
With regards to claim 5, Koch et al., as obvious modified for its connection lines set forth above, further discloses the controller includes a circuit board (e.g. glass wafer; Figure 2a) connected to lines of the first sensor sheet and lines of the second sensor sheet such that the circuit board includes connection lines connecting the ground lines of the first sensor sheet with the power supply lines of the second sensor sheet. (See, Figures 2,3,4).
With regards to claim 6, Koch et al., as obvious modified for its connection lines set forth above, further discloses the controller includes a circuit board (e.g. glass wafer; Figure 2a) connected to lines of the first sensor sheet and lines of the second sensor sheet, and the selector is provided on the circuit board and includes wirings connecting the ground lines of the first sensor sheet with the power supply lines of the second sensor sheet. (See, Figures 2,3,4).
With regards to claims 7-14, the claims are commensurate in scope with the above claims 1-3,5-6 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Dietz, Liu and Miyajima, are related to flexible shaped sensor systems.
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