DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response, filed 01/20/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot due to a new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 8-9, 11-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106841812 A, prior art of record - all citations are to the previously provided English translation) in view of Rosenberg et al. (US 20150091858 A1).Regarding claim 1:Wang teaches a system for measuring resistance, comprising:
a plurality of electrodes arranged in an array, the plurality of electrodes comprising a plurality of input electrodes (FIGS. 1-2; column electrodes; [0013]-[0014], [0025]) and a plurality of output electrodes (FIGS. 1-2; row electrodes; [0013]-[0014], [0025]), the array comprising a plurality of nodes (FIGS. 1-2; intersections of column electrodes and row electrodes, at which the measurements are taken; [0013]-[0014], [0025]), each node being defined at an intersection between an input electrode and an output electrode;
a switching system in operative communication with the plurality of electrodes for selecting a selected node, the selected node defined at an intersection between a selected input electrode and a selected output electrode, the selected node comprising an electrical component having a resistive property (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025]);
an input ground in communication with the array for grounding remaining input electrodes other than the selected input electrode, wherein the input ground is a first stable fixed voltage (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025]);
an output ground in communication with the array for grounding remaining output electrodes other than the selected output electrode, wherein the output ground is a second stable fixed voltage (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025]);
a driving voltage source in electrical communication with the selected input electrode for providing a driving voltage to the selected node (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025]); and
a current-to-voltage converter circuit in electrical communication with the selected output electrode for receiving an output current from the selected node and converting the output current to an output voltage (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025])Wang fails to teach:
a scanning system configured to operate the switching system according to a non-sequential scanning pattern, the non-sequential scanning pattern defining a predetermined subset of nodes to be skipped such that selection of the selected input electrode and the selected output electrode omits the predetermined subset of nodes during measurementRosenberg teaches:
a scanning system configured to operate the switching system according to a non-sequential scanning pattern, the non-sequential scanning pattern defining a predetermined subset of nodes to be skipped such that selection of the selected input electrode and the selected output electrode omits the predetermined subset of nodes during measurement(FIGS. 21-24; [0217]-[0218])
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 non-sequential scanning system of Rosenberg in the device of Wang to provide variable resolution as well as variable resolution by area. This yields lower power requirements, faster scan rate, and/or the ability to “focus” on specific regions of importance with higher resolution while still scanning the overall / remaining area at a lower resolution.
Regarding claim 2:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wang also teaches:
wherein the first stable fixed voltage and the second stable fixed voltage comprise a single shared stable fixed voltage ([0013]-[0014], [0025])
Regarding claim 8:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wang also teaches:
wherein the switching system comprises: an input multiplexor for selecting the selected input electrode; an output multiplexor for selecting the selected output electrode; a plurality of input switches in electrical communication with the input multiplexor and the plurality of input electrodes, for establishing electrical communication between the selected input electrode and the driving voltage source, and between the remaining input electrodes and the first stable fixed voltage; and a plurality of output switches in electrical communication with the output multiplexor and the plurality of output electrodes, for establishing electrical communication between the selected output electrode and the current-to-voltage converter circuit, and between the remaining output electrodes and the second stable fixed voltage(FIGS. 1-2, switches are shown in a classic circuit diagram; [0013]-[0014], [0025])
Regarding claim 9:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Wang also teaches:
wherein the plurality of input switches and the plurality of output switches comprise single-pole double-throw switches (FIGS. 1-2, switches are shown as SPDT switches in a classic circuit diagram)
Regarding claim 11:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wang also teaches:
wherein the driving voltage source comprises a DC voltage source ([0013]-[0014])
Regarding claim 12:Wang teaches a method of measuring resistance, comprising:
providing a plurality of electrodes arranged in an array, the plurality of electrodes comprising a plurality of input electrodes (FIGS. 1-2; column electrodes; [0013]-[0014], [0025]) and a plurality of output electrodes (FIGS. 1-2; row electrodes; [0013]-[0014], [0025]);
providing a plurality of nodes in the array, each node defined at an intersection of an input electrode and an output electrode (FIGS. 1-2; intersections of column electrodes and row electrodes, at which the measurements are taken; [0013]-[0014], [0025]);
selecting a selected node at an intersection of a selected input electrode and a selected output electrode, the selected node comprising an electrical component having a resistive property (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025]);
grounding remaining input electrodes other than the selected input electrode by establishing electrical communication between the remaining input electrodes and a first stable fixed voltage (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025]);
grounding remaining output electrodes other than the selected output electrode by establishing electrical communication between the remaining output electrodes and a second stable fixed voltage (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025]);
applying a driving voltage to the selected input electrode; converting the driving voltage to an output current through a resistance of the electrical component (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025]);
receiving the output current at the selected output electrode; and converting the output current to an output voltage for measuring the resistance of the electrical component (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025])Wang fails to teach:
as determined by a non-sequential scanning pattern, the non-sequential scanning pattern defining a predetermined subset of nodes to be skipped such that selection of the selected input electrode and the selected output electrode omits the predetermined subset of nodes during measurementRosenberg teaches:
as determined by a non-sequential scanning pattern, the non-sequential scanning pattern defining a predetermined subset of nodes to be skipped such that selection of the selected input electrode and the selected output electrode omits the predetermined subset of nodes during measurement(FIGS. 21-24; [0217]-[0218])
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 non-sequential scanning of Rosenberg in the method of Wang to provide variable resolution as well as variable resolution by area. This yields lower power requirements, faster scan rate, and the ability to “focus” on specific regions of importance with higher resolution while still scanning the overall / remaining area at a lower resolution.
Regarding claim 13:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Wang also teaches:
wherein the first stable fixed voltage and the second stable fixed voltage comprise a single shared stable fixed voltage (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025])
Regarding claim 18:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Wang also teaches:
selecting the selected input electrode using an input multiplexor and selecting the selected output electrode using an output multiplexor (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025])
Regarding claim 19:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Wang also teaches:
wherein selecting the selected node comprises establishing electrical communication between the selected input electrode and the driving voltage source and establishing electrical communication between the selected output electrode and the current-to-voltage converter circuit (FIGS. 1-2; [0013]-[0014], [0025])
Claims 3-5, 10, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106841812 A, prior art of record - all citations are to the previously provided English translation) in view of Rosenberg et al. (US 20150091858 A1) and further in view of Yang et al. (“A 32× 32 temperature and tactile sensing array using PI-copper films”, prior art of record).Regarding claim 3:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wang appears to inherently, but fails to explicitly, teach:
wherein the resistive property is variable in response to temperature(It is noted that Wang mentions Yang in [0009])Yang teaches:
devices such as that of Wang are configured such that the resistive property is variable in response to temperature (e.g., FIGS. 8 and 13-14)
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 teachings of Yang into the device of Wang to allow for temperature detection.
Regarding claim 4:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wang appears to inherently, but fails to explicitly, teach:
wherein the resistive property is variable in response to strain(It is noted that Wang mentions Yang in [0009])Yang teaches:
devices such as that of Wang are configured such that the resistive property is variable in response to strain (e.g., FIGS. 8 and 13-14)
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 teachings of Yang into the device of Wang to allow for strain detection.
Regarding claim 5:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wang appears to inherently, but fails to explicitly, teach:
wherein the resistive property is variable in response to pressure(It is noted that Wang mentions Yang in [0009])Yang teaches:
devices such as that of Wang are configured such that the resistive property is variable in response to pressure (e.g., FIGS. 8 and 13-14)
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 teachings of Yang into the device of Wang to allow for pressure detection.
Regarding claim 10:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wang fails to explicitly teach:
an analog-to-digital converter in electrical communication with the current-to-voltage converter circuit for receiving the output voltage and converting the output voltage to a digital signal; and a processor in electrical communication with the analog-to-digital converter for receiving the digital signal and processing the digital signal(this is strongly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art)Yang teaches:
an analog-to-digital converter (e.g., section 3.1 mid-way) in electrical communication with the current-to-voltage converter circuit for receiving the output voltage and converting the output voltage to a digital signal; and a processor in electrical communication with the analog-to-digital converter for receiving the digital signal and processing the digital signal (FIGS. 9, 12, and 13-14; section 3.1)
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 an ADC and processor, as taught by Yang, in the device of Wang to allow for processing of the voltage into a usable signal, such as pressure or temperature.
Regarding claim 14:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Wang fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the resistance of the electrical component is variable and dependent on a temperature of an environment around the electrical component, and the method further comprises determining a value of the temperature at the selected node with reference to the resistance of the electrical component(It is noted that Wang mentions Yang in [0009])Yang teaches:
wherein the resistance of the electrical component is variable and dependent on a temperature of an environment around the electrical component, and the method further comprises determining a value of the temperature at the selected node with reference to the resistance of the electrical component (e.g., FIGS. 8 and 13-14)
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 teachings of Yang into the method of Wang to allow for temperature detection.
Regarding claim 15:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Wang fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the resistance of the electrical component is variable and dependent on a strain of an environment around the electrical component, and the method further comprises determining a value of the strain at the selected node with reference to the resistance of the electrical component(It is noted that Wang mentions Yang in [0009])Yang teaches:
wherein the resistance of the electrical component is variable and dependent on a strain of an environment around the electrical component, and the method further comprises determining a value of the strain at the selected node with reference to the resistance of the electrical component (e.g., FIGS. 8 and 13-14)
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 teachings of Yang into the method of Wang to allow for strain detection.
Regarding claim 16:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Wang fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the resistance of the electrical component is variable and dependent on a pressure of an environment around the electrical component, and the method further comprises determining a value of the pressure at the selected node with reference to the resistance of the electrical component(It is noted that Wang mentions Yang in [0009])Yang teaches:
wherein the resistance of the electrical component is variable and dependent on a pressure of an environment around the electrical component, and the method further comprises determining a value of the pressure at the selected node with reference to the resistance of the electrical component (e.g., FIGS. 8 and 13-14)
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 teachings of Yang into the method of Wang to allow for pressure detection.
Regarding claim 20:Wang and Rosenberg teach all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Wang fails to explicitly teach:
receiving the output voltage and converting the output voltage to a digital signal; and receiving the digital signal and processing the digital signal(It is noted that Wang mentions Yang in [0009])Yang teaches:
receiving the output voltage and converting the output voltage to a digital signal (e.g., section 3.1 mid-way); and receiving the digital signal and processing the digital signal (FIGS. 9, 12, and 13-14; section 3.1)
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 an ADC and processor, as taught by Yang, in the method of Wang to allow for processing of the voltage into a usable signal, such as pressure or temperature.
Claims 6-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106841812 A, prior art of record - all citations are to the previously provided English translation) in view of Rosenberg et al. (US 20150091858 A1) and Yang et al. (“A 32× 32 temperature and tactile sensing array using PI-copper films”, prior art of record) and further in view of Wilssens (US 6505522 B1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 6:Wang, Rosenberg, and Yang teach all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.Wang fails to teach:
an insole, wherein the array is disposed in the insoleWilssens teaches:
an insole, wherein the array is disposed in the insole (Col. 8, Lines 21-64)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the array in an insole, as taught by Wilssens, in the device of Wang to allow for gait, weight, and weight distribution measurements.
Regarding claim 7:Wang, Rosenberg, Yang, and Wilssens teach all the limitations of claim 6, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 6 rejection above, Wilssens teaches:
wherein the system is configured to measure a body weight of a user wearing the insole based on the output voltage(paragraph starting at Col. 6, Line 29; Col. 8, Lines 21-64; the examiner notes that “voltage”, as claimed, is met upon the combination)
Regarding claim 17:Wang, Rosenberg, and Yang teach all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Wang fails to teach:
wherein the array is disposed in an insole, and the method further comprises measuring a body weight of a user wearing the insole based on the output voltageWilssens teaches:
wherein the array is disposed in an insole, and the method further comprises measuring a body weight of a user wearing the insole based on the output voltage (paragraph starting at Col. 6, Line 29; Col. 8, Lines 21-64; the examiner notes that “voltage”, as claimed, is met upon the combination)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the array in an insole, as taught by Wilssens, in the method of Wang to allow for gait, weight, and weight distribution measurements.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-13, and 18-19 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106841812 A, prior art of record - all citations are to the previously provided English translation) in view of Loomis et al. (US 20070234825 A1).
See the rejection of claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-13, and 18-19 above; however, replace the teachings of Rosenberg with [0034] and [0049]-[0050] of Loomis. The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Loomis into the device/method of Wang is to allow for lower power consumption, faster detection, adjustable resolution, and/or the ability to “focus” on specific regions of importance.
Claims 3-5, 10, 14-16, and 20 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106841812 A, prior art of record - all citations are to the previously provided English translation) in view of Loomis et al. (US 20070234825 A1) and further in view of Yang et al. (“A 32× 32 temperature and tactile sensing array using PI-copper films”, prior art of record).
See paragraph “23” in combination with paragraph numbers 12-19 of the instant Office action. I.e., substituting Rosenberg with Loomis.
Claims 6-7 and 17 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106841812 A, prior art of record - all citations are to the previously provided English translation) in view of Loomis et al. (US 20070234825 A1) and Yang et al. (“A 32× 32 temperature and tactile sensing array using PI-copper films”, prior art of record) and further in view of Wilssens (US 6505522 B1, prior art of record).
See paragraph numbers 23-24 in combination with paragraph numbers 20-22 of the instant Office action. I.e., substituting Rosenberg with Loomis.
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 Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855