DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites the limitation “the housing” in line 1 without sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. hereinafter Baker (US 20160131542 A1) in view of Moussette et al. hereinafter Moussette (US 20180129292 A1), and Newgarden et al. hereinafter Newgarden (US 5566936 A).
With respect to claim 1, Baker discloses an impact detector (press sensor that utilizes the piezoelectric sensor element 300, para. [0067]), comprising:
a sensor mounting bracket (303);
a piezo film sensor assembly (301) coupled to the sensor mounting bracket (303); and
an interface circuit (250) to obtain one or more generated signals from the piezo film sensor assembly (signal generated by the piezoelectric element, para. [0047]),
where the impact signal occurs in response to a force being applied to the impact sensing object (the press detector may be configured to sense or detect impact, pressure variations, and/or pressure vibrations associated with a physical touch or a touch gesture, para. [0031]).
Baker discloses the claimed invention except the interface circuit configured to reduce a first amplitude associated with a noise signal of the one or more generated signals and amplify a second amplitude associated with an impact signal of the one or more generated signals.
Moussette invention related to the field of electronic devices with touch-sensitive surfaces and tactile output generators disclose the interface circuit configured to reduce a first amplitude associated with a noise signal of the one or more generated signals and amplify a second amplitude associated with an impact signal of the one or more generated signals (modifying the tactile output sequence so as to emphasize the second set of tactile outputs relative to the first set of tactile outputs by performing one or more of: increasing an amplitude of the second set of tactile outputs and decreasing an amplitude of the first set of tactile outputs, para. [0278]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baker to include the interface circuit taught by Moussette, wherein the interface circuit is configured to reduce a first amplitude associated with a noise signal of the one or more generated signals and to amplify a second amplitude associated with an impact signal. Baker discloses an impact detector with a piezoelectric sensor but is silent as to selectively attenuating noise while amplifying impact signals. Moussette teaches such signal conditioning to emphasize impact related signals. An ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Moussette’s interference circuit into Baker’s impact detector to improve signal clarity and detection reliability, yielding predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Baker modified by Moussette does not explicitly disclose the sensor mounting bracket attached to an impact sensing object.
Newgarden invention related to the field of a table tennis game that can be played by one player, requiring the player to return a served ball and score by striking one or more targets strategically placed on the table surface (col. 1 lines 10-14) discloses the sensor mounting bracket attached to an impact sensing object (Piezo film sensor element 17 is bonded to disc 13, near the periphery, col. 4 lines 23-25).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Baker to include a sensor mounting bracket attached to an impact sensing object as taught by Newgarden. Baker and Moussette disclose an impact detector with a piezoelectric sensor and signal conditioning but do not explicitly discloses attaching the sensor via a mounting bracket to an impact sensing object. Newgarden teaches bonding a piezoelectric sensor to an impact target using a mounting structure. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Newgarden’s mounting arrangement into Baker’s impact detector to ensure stable sensor attachment and reliable impact detection, yielding predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 7, Baker, Moussette, and Newgarden disclose the impact detector of claim 1 above. Newgarden further discloses the piezo film sensor assembly is coupled to the sensor mounting bracket such that the piezo film sensor assembly has freedom of movement in a least one axis in a three-dimensional plane (Sensor element 17 is bonded to disc 13 so that any flexing of disc 13, for example, due to the contact of a table tennis ball on sensor 7, will apply stress to sensor element 17, col. 4 lines 29-31; see Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the piezo film sensor assembly of Baker, as modified by Moussette, to be coupled to the sensor mounting bracket with freedom of movement in at least one axis, as taught by Newgarden, to enhance flexing of the sensor element in response to impact and improve signal generation with predictable results.
With respect to claim 8, Baker, Moussette, and Newgarden disclose the impact detector of claim 1 above. Baker further discloses the piezo film sensor assembly is coupled to the sensor mounting bracket (303) such that an air gap exist between the piezo film sensor assembly and the sensor mounting bracket (see void region 388, Fig. 3B and para. [0064]).
With respect to claim 9, Baker, Moussette, and Newgarden disclose the impact detector of claim 1 above. Baker further discloses the housing includes a locking mechanism that provides water resistant protection to the piezo film sensor assembly (the encapsulant may be utilized to keep out humidity and/or to keep the sensor waterproof, para. [0115]).
With respect to claim 10, Baker, Moussette, and Newgarden disclose the impact detector of claim 1 above. Baker discloses an amplifier connected to terminals T1 T2 to detect a signal proportional to the magnitude of the stimulus, (para. [0075]- [0076]). Baker as modified by Moussette and Newgarden does not explicitly disclose the interface circuit comprises: an inverting voltage amplifier; a non-inverting voltage amplifier; and a differential amplifier, wherein: the inverting voltage amplifier obtains one or more signals from a first set of piezo film strip sensors to produce a first output; the non-inverting voltage amplifier obtains one or more signals from a second set of piezo film strips sensors to produce a second output; and the differential amplifier obtains the first output and the second output.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice to implement the interface circuit of Baker using an inverting voltage amplifier, a non-inverting voltage amplifier, and a differential amplifier, as recited in the claim. Baker discloses amplifying signals proportional to stimulus magnitude but does not specify a particular amplifier topology. The selection of inverting, non-inverting, and differential amplifier configurations to process piezoelectric sensor signals represents a known and predictable variation that performs the same function of signal amplification and comparison to achieve the same result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 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 3, and 5-6 are also objected as these claims depend on either in claim 2 or 4.
With respect to claim 2, the references separately or in combination fails to disclose a first set of piezo film strip sensors of the at least four piezo film strip sensors are disposed on a first side of the center plate; a second set of piezo film strip sensors of the at least four piezo film strip sensors are disposed on a second side of the center plate, opposite the first side; and the first set of piezo film strip sensors and the second set of piezo film strip sensors are positioned symmetrically across the center plate.
With respect to claim 4, the references separately or in combination fails to disclose the piezo film sensor assembly further comprises: a first piezo film strip sensor; a second piezo film strip sensor; and a center plate, wherein: the first piezo film strip sensor is disposed on a first side of the center plate; the second piezo film strip sensor is disposed on a second side of the center plate, opposite the first side; and the first piezo film strip sensor and the second piezo film strip sensor are positioned symmetrically across the center plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130035827 A1 discloses a vehicle with an occupant safety system includes an occupant safety system designed to reduce injury to an occupant during an accident involving the vehicle and a processor coupled to the safety system and that receives at least one inertial property of the vehicle and information about a portion of a road ahead of the vehicle in its travel direction. If the processor determines, based on the at least one inertial property and the information, that the vehicle is unlikely to safely travel that portion of the road, the processor initiates action to ensure safe travel of the vehicle or safety of the occupant. The inertial property of the vehicle may be provided by an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that measures acceleration in three orthogonal directions and angular velocity about three orthogonal axes, all at a substantially common location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEDEON M KIDANU whose telephone number is (571)270-0591. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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.
/GEDEON M KIDANU/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 1/7/26