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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2026-02-04 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 5-30, and 34-64 remain pending in this application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim(s) 2-4 and 31-33 have been canceled. Claim(s) 64 has/have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-02-04 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that O’Donnell does not teach a sensor configured to “detect a change in the signal in response to the deformation of the deformable layer” for “a deformable layer containing soft ferromagnetic material. Further, Applicant argues that the transmit coil of the instant application does not transmit signals associated with a force…applied to the container.” As taught by O’Donnell, Instead, the transmit coil generates a transmit signal. The receive coil receives a signal corresponding to a proximity of the soft ferromagnetic material in the deformable layer.
Additionally, applicant argues, that none of the cited references teach a semiconductor die having an integrated circuit and coils that can form an IC package for a magnetic touch sensor.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, O’Donnell does teach a sensor as claimed, Paragraph [0079] teaches a sensor that can detect when the magnetically sensitive particles, 14, move or deviate from an initial position. A sensor that can detect a deviation can detect a change in the signal else it would not be able to detect the deviation. Since the magnetically sensitive particles are part of the deformable layer as shown in Figs 1A-1C and 6A-6C. The transmit coils of O’Donnell also generate a transmit signal, transmitting a signal necessarily implies the generation of said transmit signal. The receive coil of O’Donnell receives the signal from the magnetic sensitive particles in the deformable layer, this signal may include the positions of the particles as taught in Paragraph [0079] of O’Donnell.
Additionally, the combination of O’Donnell in view of Pepka does teach a semiconductor die having an integrated circuit and coils that can form an IC package for a magnetic touch sensor as paragraph [0042] of Pepka teaches a device layer, 108, with circuitry to provide output signals for the sensor, Para [0026] further teaches the fabrication of the coils using a standard IC process. Indicating the coils may be fabricated in an IC package. Pepka also teaches, in Paragraph [0006], that the coil may be integrated on or in the die. Therefore, Pepka does teach an integrated circuit and coils in an IC package and integrated in a semiconductor die.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 54, and 56-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by O’Donnell et al. (US-20240044725-A1).
Regarding Claim 54, O’Donnell teaches a method of making a magnetic touch sensor, the method comprising:
providing one or more magnetic field sensing elements (Fig 6A-6C: sensors, 20 | Para [0092] teaches the sensors may be magnetic sensors) on a substrate (Fig 6A-6C: substrate, 62);
forming a deformable layer (Fig 6A-6C: the layer consisting of the medium, 16, and magnetic particles, 14) adjacent the one or more magnetic field sensing elements (Fig 6A-6C shows the deformable layer 16, adjacent to the sensors, 20), wherein the deformable layer includes ferromagnetic material (Para [0152] teaches the particles within the deformable layer may be can be ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic), and wherein the deformable layer is mechanically compliant and configured to undergo a deformation in response to an applied force (Can be seen in Figs 6A-6C), and wherein the deformable layer is configured to produce a changing magnetic field in response to the deformation (Para [0079]-[0080] teach magnetic sensors, 20, that detect movement in the magnetically sensitive particles due to displacement by the deformable layer); and
providing detection circuitry configured to detect the changing magnetic field and produce an output signal indicative of the deformation of the deformable layer (Para [0140] teaches the sensors may generate output signals indicative of the force applied to the deformable layer).
Regarding Claim 56, O’Donnell teaches the method of claim 54, further comprising forming one or more transmitting antennas on the substrate, wherein the one or more transmitting antennas are configured to transmit a signal (Para [0115] with reference to Fig 13A and 13E teaches a coil (Fig 13E), that can generate a magnetic field, located on a flexible container 18, containing the flexible medium as shown in Figs 6A-6C and can located on a substrate, as shown in Figs 6A-6C and taught in Para [0117]), and wherein the one or more magnetic field sensing elements are configured to receive the signal (Magnetic sensors are inherently configured to receive magnetic signals).
Regarding Claim 57, O’Donnell teaches the method of claim 56, wherein the ferromagnetic material comprises a soft ferromagnetic material (Para [0161] teaches magnetic material in the deformable layer is soft).
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 1, 5-15, 23, 25-26, 28, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell in view of Pepka et al. (US-20130300406-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, O’Donnell teaches a magnetic touch sensor comprising: one or more transmitting coils disposed on a substrate and configured to transmit a signal (Para [0115] with reference to Fig 13A and 13E teaches a coil (Fig 13E), that can generate a magnetic field, located on a flexible container 18, containing the flexible medium as shown in Figs 6A-6C and can located on a substrate, as shown in Figs 6A-6C and taught in Para [0117]);
one or more magnetic field sensing elements (Para [0117] teaches a magnetic sensor may be included on the surface of the container) disposed on the substrate (Para [0117] teaches magnetic sensors located within a substrate, Figs 6A-6C also show the sensors on a substrate, 62) and configured to receive the signal from the one or more transmitting coils (magnetic sensors are inherently configured to receive magnetic signals);
a deformable layer (Figs 1A-1C and Figs 6A-6C: the layer consisting of the medium, 16, and magnetic particles, 14) containing soft ferromagnetic material (Para [0161] teaches magnetic material in the deformable layer is soft), wherein the deformable layer is adjacent to the one or more magnetic field sensing elements (Fig 6A-6C shows the deformable layer 16, adjacent to the sensors, 20 and Fig 13A shows the container, which contains the sensors, the container enclosing the deformable layer, 16, as shown in Figs 1A-1C), wherein deformable layer is configured to facilitate magnetic coupling between the one or more transmitting coils and the one or more magnetic field sensing elements (The deformable layer is configured to facilitate magnetic coupling between sensors as it is composed of magnetic particles, 14, therefore this would be an inherent property), and wherein the deformable layer is mechanically compliant and configured to undergo a deformation in response to an applied force (Can be seen in Figs 6A-6C, and Para [0110] teaches the container, 18, is compressible and flexible); and
detection circuitry connected to the one or more magnetic field sensing elements and configured to detect a change in the signal in response to the deformation of the deformable layer, wherein the detection circuitry is configured to produce an output signal indicative of the deformation of the deformable layer (Para [0079] teaches the sensors may generate output signals indicative of the force applied to the deformable layer).
O’Donnell does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate comprises a semiconductor die comprising an integrated circuit disposed in the semiconductor die, and wherein the integrated circuit comprises the detection circuitry.
However, Pepka teaches wherein the substrate comprises a semiconductor die (Fig 1A: die, 104) comprising an integrated circuit disposed in the semiconductor die, and wherein the integrated circuit comprises the detection circuitry (Para [0024] teaches a device layer, 108, with circuitry to provide output signals for the sensor, Para [0026] furth teaches the fabrication of the coils using a standard IC process and Paragraph [0006] teaches that the coil may be integrated on or in the die). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the substrate of O’Donnell to include the semiconductor die of Pepka. A motivation for this modification is semiconductor dies can include circuitry as taught in Pepka in Para [0006].
Regarding Claim 5, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the soft ferromagnetic material is dispersed in the deformable layer (Can be seen in Figs 6A-6C).
Regarding Claim 6, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 5, wherein the deformable layer has a plurality of regions and wherein the soft ferromagnetic material is dispersed with different respective concentrations in the plurality of regions (Fig 6A-6C shows different concentrations of the magnetic materials).
Regarding Claim 7, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the output signal is indicative of a location associated with the applied force (Para [0095] teaches the sensors can detect a surface topography which would indicate the location of the force).
Regarding Claim 8, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the output signal is indicative of a direction associated with the applied force (Para 0094]).
Regarding Claim 9, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the output signal is indicative of a magnitude associated with the applied force (Para [0113] describes signals associated with force to include a magnitude of force, Para [0093] teaches the output signals can be indicative of a vertically applied force).
Regarding Claim 10, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the output signal is indicative of a time associated with the applied force (Para [0095]).
Regarding Claim 11, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the output signal is indicative of a temperature associated with the applied force (Para [0095]).
Regarding Claim 12, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the output signal is indicative of a pressure applied to the deformable layer (Para [0093] teaches pressure compressing the particles 14, and the sensors can output signals associated with this pressure.).
Regarding Claim 13, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the output signal is indicative of a displacement of the deformable layer (Para [0095]).
Regarding Claim 14, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 13, wherein the output signal is indicative of a location associated with the displacement of the deformable layer (Para [0095] teaches the sensors can detect a surface topography which would indicate the location of the force).
Regarding Claim 15, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the one or more transmitting coils are disposed adjacent to one or more magnetic field sensing elements (Para [0115] and [0117] teach the integrated structure, 132, located on the container,18, can have a transmitting coil and magnetic sensors, making them adjacent to each other).
Regarding Claim 23, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the deformable layer comprises polyimide (Para [0074] teaches the medium, 16, may be polyimide).
Regarding Claim 25, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the deformable layer comprises silicone gel (Para [0092]).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of O’Donnell in view of Pepka, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches a protective layer disposed between (i) the one or more transmitting coils and/or one or more magnetic field sensing elements, and (ii) the deformable layer (Pepka - Para [0028] teaches an insulation layer being placed between the components (coil, sensing element, substrate) of the sensor so as to protect from shorts, which in the combination would necessarily be between the coil/sensing element and the deformable layer). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 28, O’Donnell further teaches the magnetic touch sensor of claim 1, wherein the soft ferromagnetic material comprises ferrite particles (Para [0152] teaches the particles can be ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic).
Regarding Claim 58, O’Donnell does not teach providing a protective layer between the substrate and the deformable layer, wherein the protective layer is configured to protect the one or more magnetic field sensing elements. However, Pepka teaches providing a protective layer between the substrate and the deformable layer, wherein the protective layer is configured to protect the one or more magnetic field sensing elements (Para [0028] teaches an insulation layer being placed between the components (coil, sensing element, substrate) of the sensor so as to protect from shorts). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the touch sensor of O’Donnell to include the protective layer of Pepka. A motivation for this combination is the insulation layer can protect from shorts as taught by Pepka in Para [0028].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell in view of Pepka in view of Hoefken (US-20230392957-A1).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of O’Donnell in view of Pepka does not teach wherein the one or more magnetic field sensing elements comprise a first plurality of receiving coils. However, Hoefken teaches wherein the one or more magnetic field sensing elements comprise a first plurality of receiving coils (Para [0084] with reference to Fig 13, teaches a magnetic detection unit, 1370, comprising magnetic sensors, 1372, that may include a plurality of inductive coils to read a magnetic field). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the magnetic sensing element of the combination to incorporate the inductive coils of Hoefken. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that magnetic sensing elements such as hall sensors and inductive coils would sense magnetic fields similarly, as is also taught in Hoefken in Para [0084], and that using an inductive coil would have the predictable result of sensing a magnetic field.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell in view of Pepka in view of Murata et al. (US-20030211638-A1).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of O’Donnell in view of Pepka does not teach wherein the deformable layer comprises benzocyclobutene (BCB). However, Murata teaches a deformable layer comprises benzocyclobutene (BCB) (Para [0085] with reference to Figs 2-6, teaches a flexible organic film layer, 36, Para [0070] teaches the organic film layer may be benzocyclobutene film). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the deformable layer of the combination to be made of BCB as taught by Murata. A motivation for this modification is that BCB film may be heat treated at a lower temperature as taught by Murata in Para [0070]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell in view of Pepka in view of Lim et al. (KR-20200111522-A, refer to machine translation from office action dated 2025-11-04 for references cited).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of O’Donnell in view of Pepka does not teach wherein the protective layer comprises Parylene. However, Lim teaches a protective layer comprising Parylene (Para [0050] teaches a protective layer comprising parylene). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective layer of the combination to be made of parylene as taught in Lim. A motivation for using parylene is that it is a dry lubricant providing a low friction option.
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell in view of Pepka in view of Hoefken.
Regarding Claim 64, O’Donnell teaches a magnetic touch sensor comprising: one or more transmitting coils disposed on a substrate and configured to transmit a signal (Para [0115] with reference to Fig 13A and 13E teaches a coil (Fig 13E), that can generate a magnetic field, located on a flexible container 18, containing the flexible medium as shown in Figs 6A-6C and can located on a substrate, as shown in Figs 6A-6C and taught in Para [0117]);
one or more magnetic field sensing elements (Para [0117] teaches a magnetic sensor may be included on the surface of the container) disposed on the substrate (Para [0117] teaches magnetic sensors located within a substrate, Figs 6A-6C also show the sensors on a substrate, 62) and configured to receive the signal from the one or more transmitting coils (magnetic sensors are inherently configured to receive magnetic signals);
a deformable layer (Figs 1A-1C and Figs 6A-6C: the layer consisting of the medium, 16, and magnetic particles, 14) containing soft ferromagnetic material (Para [0161] teaches magnetic material in the deformable layer is soft), wherein the deformable layer is adjacent to the one or more magnetic field sensing elements (Fig 6A-6C shows the deformable layer 16, adjacent to the sensors, 20 and Fig 13A shows the container, which contains the sensors, the container enclosing the deformable layer, 16, as shown in Figs 1A-1C), wherein deformable layer is configured to facilitate magnetic coupling between the one or more transmitting coils and the one or more magnetic field sensing elements (The deformable layer is configured to facilitate magnetic coupling between sensors as it is composed of magnetic particles, 14, therefore this would be an inherent property), and wherein the deformable layer is mechanically compliant and configured to undergo a deformation in response to an applied force (Can be seen in Figs 6A-6C, and Para [0110] teaches the container, 18, is compressible and flexible); and
detection circuitry connected to the one or more magnetic field sensing elements and configured to detect a change in the signal in response to the deformation of the deformable layer, wherein the detection circuitry is configured to produce an output signal indicative of the deformation of the deformable layer (Para [0079] teaches the sensors may generate output signals indicative of the force applied to the deformable layer).
O’Donnell does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate comprises a semiconductor die comprising an integrated circuit disposed in the semiconductor die, and wherein the integrated circuit comprises the detection circuitry.
However, Pepka teaches wherein the substrate comprises a semiconductor die (Fig 1A: die, 104) comprising an integrated circuit disposed in the semiconductor die, and wherein the integrated circuit comprises the detection circuitry (Para [0024] teaches a device layer, 108, with circuitry to provide output signals for the sensor, Para [0026] furth teaches the fabrication of the coils using a standard IC process and Paragraph [0006] teaches that the coil may be integrated on or in the die). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the substrate of O’Donnell to include the semiconductor die of Pepka. A motivation for this modification is semiconductor dies can include circuitry as taught in Pepka in Para [0006].
The combination of O’Donnell in view of Pepka does not teach the combination of O’Donnell in view of Pepka does not teach wherein the substrate comprises a printed circuit board (PCB). However, Hoefken teaches wherein the substrate comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) (Para [0086] with reference to Fig 13 teaches the magnetic sensing elements may be connected on a printed circuit board, 1370). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the substrate of the combination to incorporate the PCB of Hoefken. A motivation for this modification is that a PCB allows for the electrical connection between two points as taught in Hoefken in Para [0086].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858