DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 20 – 25, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36, 37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh et al. (2021/0217543, hereinafter Marsh) in view of Mathieu et al. (WO2016009151, hereinafter Mathieu). Regarding claim 20, Marsh discloses a method and apparatus comprising an upper substrate layer 21 having a lower surface; an upper sensor portion comprising an upper conductive layer 20 applied to the lower surface of the upper substrate layer; and an upper force-sensitive resistor layer 22 applied to the upper conductive layer; a lower substrate layer 31 having an upper surface in a facing relationship with the lower surface of the upper substrate layer; a lower sensor portion comprising a lower conductive layer 30 applied to the upper surface of the lower substrate layer; and a lower force-sensitive resistor layer 32 applied to the lower conductive layer (See Figs. 1 and 2, See Pg. 2, Para. 0033 and Pg. 3, Paras. 0036 – 0038). Marsh fails to disclose that the lower force-sensitive resistor layer and the upper force-sensitive resistor layer are laterally offset under a zero-shear force condition and/or a zero-torque condition; and the lower force-sensitive resistor layer and the upper force-sensitive resistor layer are moveable laterally towards or away from each other in response to a shear force and/or a torque. However, Mathieu discloses a method and apparatus comprising a lower force-sensitive layer 2, 4 and an upper force-sensitive layer 1, 3 that are laterally offset under a zero-shear force condition and/or a zero-torque condition and that are moveable laterally towards or away from each other in response to a shear force and/or a torque (See Figs. 2 and 3, See Pg. 7, Paras. 6 and 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marsh according to the teachings of Mathieu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device measures pressure with a high spatial resolution, has a small thickness and a limited number of electrical connections (See Mathieu, Pg. 3, Para. 8).
Regarding claim 21, Marsh fails to disclose that the lower force-sensitive resistor layer and the upper force-sensitive resistor layer are in contact under the zero-shear force condition and/or the zero-torque condition. However, in Mathieu, the lower force-sensitive layer 2, 4 and the upper force-sensitive layer 1, 3 are in electrical contact under the zero-shear force condition and/or the zero-torque condition (See Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marsh according to the teachings of Mathieu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device measures pressure with a high spatial resolution, has a small thickness and a limited number of electrical connections (See Mathieu, Pg. 3, Para. 8).
Regarding claim 22, Marsh fails to disclose that the lower force-sensitive resistor layer and the upper force-sensitive resistor layer are spaced apart under the zero-shear force condition and/or the zero-torque condition. However, in Mathieu, the lower force-sensitive layer 2, 4 and the upper force-sensitive layer 1, 3 are spaced apart under the zero-shear force condition and/or the zero-torque condition (See Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marsh according to the teachings of Mathieu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device measures pressure with a high spatial resolution, has a small thickness and a limited number of electrical connections (See Mathieu, Pg. 3, Para. 8).
Regarding claim 23, in Marsh, each of the upper sensor portion and the lower sensor portion has a symmetrical profile (See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, in Marsh, each of the upper sensor portion and the lower sensor portion has a rectangular profile (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 25, in Marsh, each of the upper sensor portion and the lower sensor portion has a non-rectangular profile portion (See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28, in Marsh, the upper force-sensitive resistor layer comprises a plurality of upper force-sensitive strips 34 applied to the upper conductive layer; and the lower force-sensitive resistor layer comprises a plurality of lower force-sensitive strips applied to the lower conductive layer (See Pg. 3, Para. 0038 and Pg. 5, Para. 0044).
Regarding claim 29, in Marsh, the plurality of upper force-sensitive strips are parallel and the plurality of lower force-sensitive strips are parallel (See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 32, Marsh fails to disclose that the plurality of upper force-sensitive strips and the plurality of lower force-sensitive strips are unevenly spaced from one another under the zero-shear condition. However, in Mathieu, the plurality of upper force-sensitive strips or layers 1, 3 and the plurality of lower force-sensitive strips or layers 2, 4 are unevenly spaced from one another under the zero-shear condition (See Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marsh according to the teachings of Mathieu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device measures pressure with a high spatial resolution, has a small thickness and a limited number of electrical connections (See Mathieu, Pg. 3, Para. 8).
Regarding claim 34, in Marsh, the upper force-sensitive resistor layer is applied to one or more upper lateral sides of the upper conductive layer and the lower force-sensitive resistor layer is applied to one or more lower lateral sides of the lower conductive layer (See Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 36, in Marsh, each conductive layer comprises conductive ink (See Pg. 3, Para. 0037).
Regarding claim 37, in Marsh, each force-sensitive resistor layer comprises FSR ink (See Pg. 3, Para. 0037).
Regarding claim 39, in Marsh, the plurality of upper force-sensitive strips and the plurality of lower force-sensitive strips are perpendicular to a direction of the shear or torque force (See Fig. 4). 5. Claims 26, 27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh and Mathieu, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Mehlmauer et al. (9,127,997 – hereinafter Mehlmauer).
Regarding claim 26, Marsh and Mathieu fail to disclose that the non-rectangular profile is a triangular profile. However, Mehlmauer discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of sensor portions (webs) A, B, C (See Fig. 1) that are located between upper and lower substrates 2a, 2b, wherein the sensor portions are formed with a triangular profile (See Col. 3, lines 44 – 51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marsh and Mathieu according to the teachings of Mehlmauer for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables three dimensional force measurement (See Mehlmauer, Col. 1, lines 51 – 55).
Regarding claim 27, Marsh and Mathieu fail to disclose that the non-rectangular profile is a trapezoidal profile. However, Mehlmauer discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of sensor portions (webs) A, B, C (See Fig. 1) that are located between upper and lower substrates 2a, 2b, wherein the sensor portions are formed with a trapezoidal profile (See Col. 3, lines 44 – 51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marsh and Mathieu according to the teachings of Mehlmauer for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables three dimensional force measurement (See Mehlmauer, Col. 1, lines 51 – 55).
Regarding claim 33, Marsh and Mathieu fail to disclose that each of the upper sensor portion and the lower sensor portion has a right-angle triangle profile. However, Mehlmauer discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of sensor portions (webs) A, B, C (See Fig. 1) that are located between upper and lower substrates 2a, 2b, wherein the sensor portions are formed with a triangular profile (See Col. 3, lines 44 – 51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marsh and Mathieu according to the teachings of Mehlmauer for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables three dimensional force measurement (See Mehlmauer, Col. 1, lines 51 – 55).
6. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh and Mathieu, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Henry et al. (4,092,854, hereinafter Henry). Regarding claim 30, Marsh and Mathieu fail to disclose that the plurality of upper force-sensitive strips are arranged in an upper pinwheel pattern and the plurality of lower force- sensitive strips are arranged in a lower pinwheel pattern. However, Henry discloses an apparatus comprising a layered structure having upper (40, 42, 44) and lower (28, 30, 32) sensor layers (See Figs. 3 and 4) arranged in a pinwheel pattern (See Col. 3, lines 23 – 50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marsh and Mathieu according to the teachings of Henry for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device minimizes cross-influencing and hysteresis between various transducers (See Henry, Col. 1, lines 63 – 68).
7. Claims 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh and Mathieu, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (“A Review of Wearable Sensor Systems to Monitor Plantar Loading in the Assessment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers”, hereinafter Wang – See IDS dated 5/9/24). Regarding claim 31, Marsh and Mathieu fail to disclose that the plurality of upper force-sensitive strips and the plurality of lower force-sensitive strips are evenly spaced from one another under the zero-shear condition. However, Wang discloses an apparatus comprising a layered structure having upper and lower sensor structures that are evenly spaced from one another under a zero-shear condition (See Figs. 5a – 5c, See Pg. 1994, Col. 1, Para. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marsh and Mathieu according to the teachings of Wang for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device performs multi-axial measurements of pressure and shear stresses at a plantar surface (See Wang, Pg. 2001, Col. 2, “Conclusion”). Regarding claim 38, Marsh and Mathieu fail to disclose that the upper conductive layer comprises one or more interacting lateral surface portions and one or more non-interacting lower surface portions; the lower conductive layer comprises one or more interacting lateral surface portions and one or more non-interacting upper surface portions; each interacting lower surface portion is positioned to contact a corresponding interacting upper surface portion under certain applied force conditions; the upper force-sensitive resistor layer is omitted from the non-interacting lower surface portions; and the lower force-sensitive resistor layer is omitted from the non-interacting upper surface portions. However, in Wang, an upper conductive layer comprises one or more interacting lateral surface portions and one or more non-interacting lower surface portions; a lower conductive layer comprises one or more interacting lateral surface portions and one or more non-interacting upper surface portions; each interacting lower surface portion is positioned to contact a corresponding interacting upper surface portion under certain applied force conditions; the upper force-sensitive resistor layer is omitted from the non-interacting lower surface portions; and the lower force-sensitive resistor layer is omitted from the non-interacting upper surface portions (See Fig. 4, See Pg. 1993, Col. 2, Para. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marsh and Mathieu according to the teachings of Wang for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device performs multi-axial measurements of pressure and shear stresses at a plantar surface (See Wang, Pg. 2001, Col. 2, “Conclusion”).
8. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh and Mathieu, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Ranky et al. (9,228,859, hereinafter Ranky – See IDS dated 5/9/24).
Regarding claim 35, Marsh and Mathieu fail to disclose that the force sensor is manufactured using additive manufacturing. However, Ranky discloses an apparatus comprising a force sensor that is manufactured using additive manufacturing (See Col. 1, lines 37 – 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Marsh and Mathieu according to the teachings of Ranky for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device embeds sensing elements into structures more efficiently to improve quality (See Ranky, Col. 1, lines 15 – 23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
10. Lazou et al. (2026/0000354) disclose an insole layer for monitoring human lower limb and foot performance. Viberg et al. (12,372,420) disclose a high-resistance sensor and method for using same. Steier (10,598,555) discloses a pressure sensor, e.g. in sole for an article of footwear. Beers et al. (10,188,169) disclose a sensor for an article of footwear. Watanabe et al. (7,068,142) disclose a pressure-sensitive resistor and pressure-sensitive sensor using the same. Saito (JP2001165788) discloses a pressure sensitive device. 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 1/9/26