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 .
This Office Action is in response to Amendment file on July 31, 2026.
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 1-12, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Park et al. (US 2018/0271285, hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses an apparatus for sensing pressure (pressure sensing chair, Title, Abstract), the apparatus comprising that
a deformable layer (first electrode 302, Fig. 3) being reversibly deformable by the pressure, because “each of the first electrode 302 and the second electrode 304 may be formed a fabric containing conductive fibers” (emphasis added, [0043]), therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the fabric containing conductive fibers would have reversible deformation under the expected pressure under pressure limit,
the deformable layer (302, Fig. 3) having a first side (bottom side of 302, Fig. 3) and a second side (top side of 302, Fig. 3) opposite the first side;
an electrically-active (EA) layer (intermediate layer 306, Fig. 3) disposed proximate the first side of the deformable layer (bottom side of 302, Fig. 3), because “… the intermediate layer 306 serves to perform an insulation function in a steady state. However, when a pressure is applied on the sensing sheet 300, the thickness of the intermediate layer 306 is decreased and thus resistance or a dielectric constant is varied such that piezoresistance or capacitance may be easily and reliably sensed” (emphasis added, [0048]), therefore, piezoresistance (i.e., piezoelectric property) corresponds to the claimed “electrically-active”,
the EA layer (306, Fig. 3) having an electrical property (“piezoresistance”, [0048]); and
a plurality of pins (first conductive regions 302-1, Fig. 3, [0044]) being electrically conductive (conductive region of first electrode 302), because Applicants do not specifically claim what a plurality of pins are made of, what dimensions they have, i.e., structural limitations for the “pins”, what mechanism is being used to fasten or anchor by a plurality of pins, and/or what mechanical properties, such as elasticity or shear/tensile strength, they have, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a word “pin” as “a piece of solid material (such as wood or metal) used especially for fastening things together or as a support by which one thing may be suspended from another”, therefore, “pin” encompasses a solid piece of material used to fasten, support, or join components under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the first conductive regions 302-1 are solid, electrically conductive regions that join, anchor, and support the adjacent first non-conductive regions 302-2 within the first electrode layer 302. Without the first conductive regions 302-1, the adjacent first non-conductive regions 302-2 would constitute discreet, unconnected regions rather than a unified first electrode layer 302. Therefore, the first conductive regions 302-1 reasonably correspond to the claimed plurality of pins, and
each having a first end (bottom end of 302-1, Fig. 3) and a second end (top end of 302-1, Fig. 3) opposite the first end, the pins (302-1 of 302, Fig. 5) extending from the second side (top side of 302, Fig. 3), through the deformable layer (302, Fig. 3), to the first side (bottom side of 302, Fig. 3) such that the pins (302-1 of 302, Fig. 3) electrically contact the EA layer (306, Fig. 3) proximate the first ends (bottom end of 302-1, Fig. 3), the electrical property being measurable between a pair of the pins (pair of 302-1, Fig. 3), because Applicants do not specifically claim what direction the pressure is applied, such as normal to or in-plane with the EA layer, and/or what the particular electrical property to be measured, such as resistance, current, voltage, or capacitance, when pressure applied normal to the intermediate layer 306, the pressure would compress the piezoresistive material and produce a measurable change in its electrical responses in both normal direction to and in-plane direction with the material, including lateral strain or shear stress within the intermediate layer 306. The spatially separated first conductive regions 302-1 may provide side-by-side electrode locations for measuring those lateral or in-plane electrical responses caused by the applied pressure. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that applied pressure can produce measurable electrical responses in both directions, and that the first conductive regions 302-1 can measure electrical responses between the pair of the regions 302-1 in response to applied pressure.
Park does not explicitly disclose that an electrical property is reversibly changeable when the EA layer is subjected to the pressure.
However, Park discloses a pressure sensing device including intermediate layer 306 whose electrical resistance changes in response to applied pressure ([0048]). Specifically, Park teaches that when pressure is applied to the sensing sheet 300 (Fig. 7), the resistance of the intermediate layer 306 varies ([0048]), thereby enabling pressure sensing. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in the absence of applied pressure, the intermediate layer 306 exhibits a baseline resistance value, and upon application and subsequent removal of pressure, the resistance correspondingly changes and returns toward its original value. Such behavior reflects a reversible change in an electrical property (i.e., piezoresistance) in response to applied pressure, which is characteristic of pressure-sensing materials and its structures. Accordingly, the intermediate layer 306 of Park corresponds to the claimed EA layer, and the disclosed pressure-induced resistance change satisfies the claimed limitation “an electrical property is reversibly changeable when the EA layer is subjected to the pressure”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such a pressure-sensitive structure to achieve repeatable and reliable sensing of resistance changes under varying applied pressure, as disclosed by Park.
Regarding claim 2, Park further discloses that the EA layer (306, Fig. 3) comprises an E-textile, the E-textile comprising one or more fibers that are one or more of electrically conductive and elastic, because “when a pressure is applied to the sensing sheet 300, the thickness of the intermediate layer 306 is decreased and thus resistance or dielectric constant is varied such that piezoresistance or capacitance may be easily and reliably sensed” (emphasis added, [0048]) and “the intermediate layer 306 contains a fiber base material and a conductive composite. Here, the fiber base material may refer to a random fiber arrangement such as a foam, a non-woven fabric, a nano-web, and the like as well as a fabric made of fibers” (emphasis added, [0053]), therefore, the intermediate layer 306 by Park comprises the electrically-active and elastic fibers having piezoresistance or capacitance.
Regarding claim 3, Park further discloses that the electrical property (piezoresistant or piezoelectric, [0048]) comprises an electrical resistance of the E-textile (piezoresistance, [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Park further discloses that the pressure is to be applied to the E-textile (Fig. 7) to cause the deformable layer (306, Fig. 7) to deform and the E-textile to stretch, the stretching causing the electrical resistance of the E-textile to change, because as shown in Fig. 7 of Park, an area where pressure is applied is depressed and stretched, causing a change of resistance due to piezoresistant property of the intermediate layer 306 ([0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Park further discloses that the deformable layer (306, Fig. 3) comprises a foam, because “the intermediate layer 306 contains a fiber base material and a conductive composite. Here, the fiber base material may refer to a random fiber arrangement such as a foam, a non-woven fabric, a nano-web, and the like as well as a fabric made of fibers” (emphasis added, [0053]).
Regarding claim 6, Park does not explicitly disclose that the foam comprises a latex foam.
However, Park further discloses that “the fiber contained in the fiber base material may be a natural fiber or a synthetic fiber including one selected from the group consisting of polyurethane, nylon, polyethylene terephthalate, and polyester, and a thickness of the fiber base material may be 1 mm or more. Accordingly fine pores are present in the intermediate layer 306, which has elasticity” ([0053]), and it is obvious to substitute a latex foam for the polymer foams disclosed by Park, as a latex foam is well-known alternative cushioning material providing high elasticity and resilience. Such substitution represents a predictable use of known materials to achieve their expected properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polymer foams in Park for a latex foam to provide sufficient elasticity and resilience for the pressure sensing device.
Regarding claim 7, Park further discloses that the electrical property (piezoresistant or piezoelectric, [0048]) is measurable proximate the second ends of the pins (top end of 302-1, Fig. 3), because the first conductive region 302-1 is made of electrically conductive fibers ([0043]), the electrical signal is measurable both ends – top and bottom ends.
Regarding claim 8, Park further discloses that the second ends of the pins (bottom end of 302-1, Fig. 3) are proximate the second side (bottom side of 302, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Park further discloses that a substrate layer (second electrode 304, Fig. 3) being electrically conductive, because “each of the first electrode 302 and the second electrode 304 may be formed a fabric containing conductive fibers” (emphasis added, [0043]), the substrate layer (304, Fig. 3) disposed proximate the second side (bottom side of 302, Fig. 3) and in electrical contact with the second ends of the pins (bottom end of 302-1, Fig. 3), because the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a word “proximate” as “very near”, therefore, it is not necessarily in physical contact with the claimed substrate layer and second side. Also, because Applicants do not specifically contact the substrate layer is in contact with the second ends of the pins, the second electrode 304 by Park is electrically contact with the bottom end of the first conductive regions 302-1 through the first and second connectors 700 and 710 (Fig. 10, [0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Park further discloses that the substrate layer (304, Fig. 3) is flexible, because “each of the first electrode 302 and the second electrode 304 may be formed a fabric containing conductive fibers” (emphasis added, [0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Park further discloses that a first additional deformable layer (support plate 400, Fig. 9) disposed on a side of the substrate layer opposite the deformable layer (302, Fig. 9). Examiner notes that Applicants do not specifically claim what degree of deformation a first additional deformable layer has, the support plate 400 by Park can correspond to the claimed first additional deformable layer in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Park further discloses that a second additional deformable layer (second adhesive layer 308, Fig. 9) disposed on a corresponding side of the EA layer (306, Fig. 9) opposite the deformable layer (302, Fig. 9). Examiner notes that Applicants do not specifically claim what degree of deformation a second additional deformable layer has, the second adhesive layer 308 by Park can correspond to the claimed second additional deformable layer in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Park further discloses that a data acquisition module (controller 220, Fig. 2) electrically connected to the substrate layer (304, Fig. 3), because “the first connector 700 and the second connector 710 may be connected to the controller 220 and may efficiently transmit the electrical signals generated from the first electrode 302 and the second electrode 304” ([0072]), therefore, the second electrode 304, which corresponds to the substrate layer in the claimed invention, is electrically connected to the controller 220.
Regarding claim 19, Park further discloses that the apparatus comprises a mat, because the pressure sensor by Park includes the cushion 310 (Fig. 3); the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a term “mat” as “something made up of densely tangles or adhering filaments or strands especially of organic matter”, and the cushion 310 by Park includes that the first elastic body 312 adhering filament-like the second elastic bodies 314, therefore, the cushion 310 corresponds to the mat in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, Park further discloses that the mat (310, Fig. 3) is to be placed on a support substrate (seat 110, Figs. 2-3) positioned proximate the second side (top side of 302, Fig. 3), because the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a word “proximate” as “very near”, and Applicants do not specifically claim whether the support substrate is in physical contact with the deformable layer, the seat 110 is formed very near a top side of the first electrode 302, which corresponds to the claimed second side and the cushion is disposed on the bottom side of the seat 110 (Fig. 2), and the pressure (Fig. 7) is to be applied by a weight of an entity placed on the mat (cushion 310, Fig. 7) proximate the first side (near bottom side of 302, Fig. 7).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0271285, hereinafter Park) in view of Glickman (US 10,466,118). The teachings of Park are discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, Park further discloses that one or more of the first additional deformable layer (support plate 400, Fig. 9) and the second additional deformable layer (second adhesive layer 308, Fig. 9).
Park does not explicitly disclose that either of these layers comprise a corresponding foam.
However, Glickman discloses a stretchable, flexible and durable pressure sensor (Fig. 2) including the compressible material in the form of a foam (Col. 2, line 17, claims 3-4 of Glickman) and teaches that the use of foam as a compressible material layer enables enhanced stretchability and flexibility in pressure-sensing apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the foam material disclosed by Glickman into the support plate and adhesive layer of Park as an alternative design choice, in order to achieve improved mechanical compliance, flexibility and long-term durability under repeated pressure conditions.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2018/0271285, hereinafter Park) in view of Aliane et al. (US 2016/0247999, hereinafter Aliane). The teachings of Park are discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses the EA layer (306, Fig. 3), however, does not explicitly disclose that the EA layer is shaped as a strip having a length that is larger than its width.
However, Aliane discloses a pressure sensor based on a piezoelectric material ([0003]) including arrays of parallel strips of an organic and piezoelectric material extending on fingers 22 and 26 (Figs. 1A-1B), which corresponds to the EA layer in the claimed invention. Aliane further teaches that “the width of each piezoelectric strip 32 may vary from 20 µm to 300 µm, for example, approximately 100 µm. The spacing between two adjacent strips 32 may vary from 10 µm to 500 µm, for example, approximately 400 µm. The thickness of each strip 32 may vary from 100 nm to 10 µm, for example, approximately 4 µm” ([0050]), and therefore, the piezoelectric strip by Aliane is formed as an elongated structure having a length greater than its width (or thickness) ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrically-active or piezoelectric layer of Park to adopt the strip-shaped configuration disclosed by Aliane. Such a modification represents a predictable variation in the geometry of the pressure sensing element, as the shape and dimensions of piezoelectric layers are routinely selected to optimize sensor performance, including sensitivity. Employing the elongated strip geometry, as disclosed by Aliane, would expect to improve sensitivity and incorporate the strip shaped piezoelectric, electrically-active layer by Ito into the pressure sensor of Park, in order to improve the sensitivity of the pressure sensor in Park.
Regarding claim 16, Aliane further discloses that the length is at least about 10 times larger than the width, because “the width of each piezoelectric strip 32 may vary from 20 µm to 300 µm, for example, approximately 100 µm. The spacing between two adjacent strips 32 may vary from 10 µm to 500 µm, for example, approximately 400 µm. The thickness of each strip 32 may vary from 100 nm to 10 µm, for example, approximately 4 µm” ([0050]), and the width by Aliane corresponds to the claimed length and the thickness by Aliane corresponds to the claimed width; for example, when a width and a thickness of the piezoelectric strip by Aliane is 300 µm and 10 µm, respectively, and it satisfies the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 17, Park in view of Aliane does not explicitly disclose that the pins are arranged single file along the length of the strip of the EA layer.
However, Aliane further discloses that the fingers 26 (i.e., conductive electrodes) in electrical contact with the piezoelectric strips 32 (Fig. 1A), wherein the fingers 26 are arranged along the length of the piezoelectric strip, and the fingers 26 correspond to the pins in the claimed invention, as both serve as conductive elements for interfacing with the piezoelectric sensing layer (i.e., EA layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conductive regions of Park to adopt the longitudinal, single file arrangement along the length of the piezoelectric strip as taught by Aliane. Such a modification represents a predictable variation in electrode configuration, as the arrangement of conductive electrodes along a sensing element is routinely selected to optimize and improve sensitivity and response of the pressure sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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, because the prior arts cited in this Office Action do not teach the claim limitation, “the substrate layer is shaped as a corresponding strip having a corresponding length that is larger than its corresponding width, the strip of the EA layer aligned with the corresponding strip of the substrate layer” of claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in July 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
Applicant’s arguments, “first, conductive regions 302-1 of Park are not a “pin” according to the plain meaning of “pin” as would be understood by those or ordinary skill in the art” (page 9, REMARKS) and “regions 302-1 of Park are a conductive region of a flexible fabric electrode 302 (see para 44 of Park), which cannot be described as a solid material such as wood or metal” (page 10, REMARKS), are not persuasive, because, as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, Applicants do not specifically claim what a plurality of pins are made of, what dimensions they have, i.e., structural limitations for the “pins”, what mechanism is used to fasten or anchor by a plurality of pins, and/or what mechanical properties, such as elasticity or shear/tensile strength, they have, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a word “pin” as “a piece of solid material (such as wood or metal) used especially for fastening things together or as a support by which one thing may be suspended from another”, therefore, “pin” encompasses a solid piece of material used to fasten, support, or join components under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The first conductive regions 302-1 are solid, electrically conductive regions join, anchor, and support the adjacent first non-conductive regions 302-2 within the first electrode layer 302. Without the first conductive regions 302-1, the adjacent first non-conductive regions 302-2 would constitute discrete, unconnected regions rather than a unified first electrode layer 302. Therefore, the first conductive regions 302-1 reasonably correspond to the claimed plurality of pins.
Furthermore, the dictionary’s reference to “such as wood or metal” is illustrative, rather than limiting. The fact that the first electrode layer 302 is a flexible fabric electrode does not establish that its conductive regions are non-solid. In materials science, a textile or fabric is generally a flexible, porous solid composed of solid fibers and void spaces. Such flexibility or porosity do not render the textile or fabric material a liquid or gas, i.e., non-solid.
Regarding Applicants’ argument at REMARKS, page 10, lines 7-19, Park discloses that the first electrode layer 302 is directly disposed on the intermediate layer 306, which is piezoresistive. The first conductive regions 302-1 contact a surface of the intermediate layer 306 on the same side of the intermediate layer 306. Pressure applied normal to the intermediate layer 306 would compress the piezoresistive material and produce a measurable change in the through-thickness response. Further, the spatially separated first conductive regions 302-1 may provide side-by-side electrode locations for measuring a lateral or in-plane electrical response, including a resistance change associated with lateral strain or shear stress caused by the applied pressure. Therefore, applied pressure can produce measurable electrical responses in both directions. Moreover, Applicants do not specifically claim what direction the pressure must be applied, such as normal to or in-plane with the EA layer, and/or what the electrical property to be measured, such as resistance, current, voltage, or capacitance. Therefore, the claim language reasonably reads on Park’s disclosed arrangement, which is capable of measuring pressure-induced electrical changes through thickness of the intermediate layer 306, laterally across the layer, or both.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO K LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/WOO K LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights