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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains at least one of the phrases that can be implied, such as the phrase “the present disclosure provides”. Correction is required (see MPEP § 608.01(b)).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the title is not descriptive. A new title that would include the inventive features of the claimed invention is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the claims recite “each sensing point of a pressure acquisition apparatus”, “sensing points of a voltage sensing circuit”, and “a plurality of arrayed sensing points” without defining whether “each sensing point”, “sensing points”, and the “arrayed sensing points” refer to the same or different sets of sensing points for the same device (i.e., either the pressure acquisition apparatus, the voltage sensing circuit, or something else).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the claims recite “the number of rows and columns of the pressure sensor” without defining how the pressure sensor is related to the “pressure acquisition apparatus”, the “voltage sensing circuit”, or the “arrayed sensing points”. In addition, the term “appropriately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “appropriate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the claims recite “a pressure signal fitting apparatus comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer instructions, and the processor is configured to execute the computer instructions stored in the memory” (claim 8) and “a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon” (claim 15), which are claims to a computer program or information that do not have a physical or tangible form (see MPEP 2106.03). In this case, the claims appear to disclose the computer program or software being expressed as a set of instructions without defining whether the “memory” (in claim 8) and the “computer-readable storage medium” (in claim 15) would include transitory or non-transitory signals. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, the claims are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, the “computer-readable storage medium” as disclosed in claim 15 does not further define or limit the subject matter of the method of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (Pat. No. US 7,562,572) (hereafter You) in view of Wiles et al. (Pat. No. US 12,158,386) (hereafter Wiltes).
Regarding claim 1, You teaches a pressure signal fitting method, comprising the steps of:
applying a pressure to each sensing point in a pressure acquisition apparatus by a pressure applying device (i.e., the sensors 11 measures the force that a hand applies to an object when the hand touches the object) (see Column 4, lines 27-41), and measuring and integrating a relationship between the pressure and a resistance of each sensing point to obtain a pressure-resistance relationship (i.e., the sensors 11 measure a force applied to each part of a hand by generating different levels of voltage upon resistance values, which are varied according to the force applied to the surface of the sensors 11) (see Column4, lines 34-41);
switching sensing points of a voltage sensing circuit by an integrated analog electronic switch (i.e., signal converting unit 22) (see Column 5, lines 10-41) to measure voltages of a plurality of arrayed sensing points pressurized respectively (i.e., the register 20 includes an input unit 21 for receiving signals, a signal converting unit 22 for converting the received signals into digital signals) (see Column 5, lines 10-41);
calculating resistances of the plurality of arrayed sensing points pressurized according to the measured voltages (i.e., the output voltage is converted into digital signals in the signal converting unit 22 and registered as original data of a file format in the memory 25) (see Column 5, lines 29-37) and in conjunction with an acquisition circuit (i.e., register 20) (see Column 5, lines 29-37);
calculating pressures of the plurality of arrayed sensing points through the optimized pressure-resistance relationship according to the calculated resistances (i.e., the computer converts the data by applying the calibration function which is defined as a proportional relationship between the known magnitude of force and the output signal of the sensors 11 to the original data, and then it registers the converted data, which will be referred to as Newton data hereinafter, in a volatile memory) (see Column 6, line 56, to Column 7, line 3); and
based on areas of pressure zones and non-pressure zones of the plurality of sensing points pressurized (i.e., the horizontal bars 115 shows the magnitude of force applied to each location at the time) (see Fig. 11), calculating actual pressures of the plurality of arrayed sensing points from the calculated pressures thereof through a relationship between the pressure and an intensity of pressure (i.e., the size of the highlighted bar is determined in proportion to the magnitude of force based on a predetermined rule) (see Column 7, lines 19-52); but does not explicitly teach fitting the corrected pressure-resistance relationship through a curve fitting formula.
Regarding the curve fitting formula, Wiles teaches applying a pressure to each sensing point in a pressure acquisition apparatus by a pressure applying device (i.e., a force 205 may be applied to conductive layer 203) (see Fig. 2), and measuring and integrating a relationship between the pressure and a resistance of each sensing point (i.e., the position and magnitude of applied force 205 can be measured from the force sensing device) (see Column 3, lines 1-20) to obtain a pressure-resistance relationship (i.e., an output from the force sensing device produces a force-resistance curve indicating the properties of the force sensing device in combination with the electronic device) (see Column 3, lines 21-28);
correcting the pressure-resistance relationship (i.e., utilizing the calibration data measured in respect of force-resistance curve 401, an adapted force-resistance curve 403 is produced which conforms more accurately to the test output of force-resistance curve 401) (see Column 4, lines 11-36) obtained by integration through a numerical filtering algorithm (i.e., background of the instant specification describes that it is known in the art to use “theoretical derivation, numerical filtering and result calibration” to correct for “consistency differences among the sensing points” in order “to achieve accurate measurement results”) (see the background on page 1 of the instant specification dated 10/30/2023), and fitting the corrected pressure-resistance relationship through a curve fitting formula (i.e., conventional optimized force resistance curve 302, 402) (see Column 3, line 29, to Column 4, line 46) to obtain an optimized pressure-resistance relationship (i.e., adapted force-resistance curve 403, 503) (see Column 3, line 29, to Column 4, line 59);
measure a plurality of arrayed sensing points pressurized respectively (i.e., utilizing four calibration data points, the adapted optimized force-resistance curve adjusts the original optimized curve by means of its curvature, gradient and offset) (see Column 3, line 29, to Column 4, line 59);
calculating resistances of the plurality of arrayed sensing points (i.e., the data from a force sensing device producing a force-resistance curve 501) (see Column 3, line 29, to Column 4, line 59) and in conjunction with an acquisition circuit (i.e., electric circuit) (see Column 3, lines 1-20);
calculating pressures of the plurality of arrayed sensing points through the optimized pressure-resistance relationship according to the calculated resistances (i.e., force-resistance curve 503 using four calibration data points shows increased conformity with the force-resistance curve initially measure) (see Column 3, line 29, to Column 4, line 59). In view of the teaching of Wiles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have interpolated the optimized force-resistance curve in order to significantly reduce error and improve consistency for the device.
Regarding claim 2, You teaches visually displaying the optimized pressure-resistance relationship through a point depiction method using drawing software (i.e., waveform 131) (see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 3, You teaches measuring voltages of a plurality of arrayed sensing points pressurized respectively comprises: measuring voltages of the plurality of arrayed sensing points pressurized by an on-chip integrated analog electronic switch or an off-chip digital-to-analog converter (i.e., signal converting unit 22) (see Column 5, lines 10-41).
Regarding claim 4, You teaches outputting the measured voltages through a conversion unit of the digital-to-analog converter (i.e., signal converting unit 22) (see Column 5, lines 10-41).
Regarding claim 5, You as modified by Wiles as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach appropriately increasing or decreasing the number of the integrated analog electronic switches based on the number of rows and columns of the pressure sensor. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the number signal communication lines depending on the number of sensing points in the sensing device. Furthermore, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (V-D)) and that duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)).
Regarding claim 6, You teaches displaying a zone where the pressure applying device applies the pressure to the arrayed sensing points through a heat map (i.e., hand map meter) (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, You as modified by Wiles as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach fitting the corrected pressure-resistance relationship through a curve fitting formula comprises: selecting corresponding curve fitting betweenness to fit the corrected pressure-resistance relationship. However, Wiles teaches fitting the corrected pressure-resistance relationship through a curve fitting formula comprises: selecting corresponding curve fitting betweenness to fit the corrected pressure-resistance relationship (i.e., method utilizes Piecewise Cubic Hermite Interpolating Polynomial (PCHIP) which allows for localized cubic interpolations to be undertaken between a pair of data points) (see Column 5, line 46, to Column 6, line 30). In view of the teaching of Wiles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have interpolated the optimized force-resistance curve in order to significantly reduce error and improve consistency for the device.
Regarding claim 8, You teaches a pressure signal fitting apparatus comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer instructions, and the processor is configured to execute the computer instructions stored in the memory, and the apparatus realizes the steps of:
applying a pressure to each sensing point in a pressure acquisition apparatus by a pressure applying device (i.e., the sensors 11 measures the force that a hand applies to an object when the hand touches the object) (see Column 4, lines 27-41), and measuring and integrating a relationship between the pressure and a resistance of each sensing point to obtain a pressure-resistance relationship (i.e., the sensors 11 measure a force applied to each part of a hand by generating different levels of voltage upon resistance values, which are varied according to the force applied to the surface of the sensors 11) (see Column 4, lines 34-41);
switching sensing points of a voltage sensing circuit by an integrated analog electronic switch (i.e., signal converting unit 22) (see Column 5, lines 10-41) to measure voltages of a plurality of arrayed sensing points pressurized respectively (i.e., the register 20 includes an input unit 21 for receiving signals, a signal converting unit 22 for converting the received signals into digital signals) (see Column 5, lines 10-41);
calculating resistances of the plurality of arrayed sensing points pressurized according to the measured voltages (i.e., the output voltage is converted into digital signals in the signal converting unit 22 and registered as original data of a file format in the memory 25) (see Column 5, lines 29-37) and in conjunction with an acquisition circuit (i.e., register 20) (see Column 5, lines 29-37);
calculating pressures of the plurality of arrayed sensing points through the optimized pressure-resistance relationship according to the calculated resistances (i.e., the computer converts the data by applying the calibration function which is defined as a proportional relationship between the known magnitude of force and the output signal of the sensors 11 to the original data, and then it registers the converted data, which will be referred to as Newton data hereinafter, in a volatile memory) (see Column 6, line 56, to Column 7, line 3); and
based on areas of pressure zones and non-pressure zones of the plurality of sensing points pressurized (i.e., the horizontal bars 115 shows the magnitude of force applied to each location at the time) (see Fig. 11), calculating actual pressures of the plurality of arrayed sensing points from the calculated pressures thereof through a relationship between the pressure and an intensity of pressure (i.e., the size of the highlighted bar is determined in proportion to the magnitude of force based on a predetermined rule) (see Column 7, lines 19-52); but does not explicitly teach fitting the corrected pressure-resistance relationship through a curve fitting formular.
Regarding the curve fitting formula, Wiles teaches applying a pressure to each sensing point in a pressure acquisition apparatus by a pressure applying device (i.e., a force 205 may be applied to conductive layer 203) (see Fig. 2), and measuring and integrating a relationship between the pressure and a resistance of each sensing point (i.e., the position and magnitude of applied force 205 can be measured from the force sensing device) (see Column 3, lines 1-20) to obtain a pressure-resistance relationship (i.e., an output from the force sensing device produces a force-resistance curve indicating the properties of the force sensing device in combination with the electronic device) (see Column 3, lines 21-28);
correcting the pressure-resistance relationship (i.e., utilizing the calibration data measured in respect of force-resistance curve 401, an adapted force-resistance curve 403 is produced which conforms more accurately to the test output of force-resistance curve 401) (see Column 4, lines 11-36) obtained by integration through a numerical filtering algorithm (i.e., background of the instant specification describes that it is known in the art to use “theoretical derivation, numerical filtering and result calibration” to correct for “consistency differences among the sensing points” in order “to achieve accurate measurement results”) (see the background on page 1 of the instant specification dated 10/30/2023), and fitting the corrected pressure-resistance relationship through a curve fitting formula (i.e., conventional optimized force resistance curve 302, 402) (see Column 3, line 29, to Column 4, line 46) to obtain an optimized pressure-resistance relationship (i.e., adapted force-resistance curve 403, 503) (see Column 3, line 29, to Column 4, line 59);
measure a plurality of arrayed sensing points pressurized respectively (i.e., utilizing four calibration data points, the adapted optimized force-resistance curve adjusts the original optimized curve by means of its curvature, gradient and offset) (see Column 3, line 29, to Column 4, line 59);
calculating resistances of the plurality of arrayed sensing points (i.e., the data from a force sensing device producing a force-resistance curve 501) (see Column 3, line 29, to Column 4, line 59) and in conjunction with an acquisition circuit (i.e., electric circuit) (see Column 3, lines 1-20);
calculating pressures of the plurality of arrayed sensing points through the optimized pressure-resistance relationship according to the calculated resistances (i.e., force-resistance curve 503 using four calibration data points shows increased conformity with the force-resistance curve initially measure) (see Column 3, line 29, to Column 4, line 59). In view of the teaching of Wiles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have interpolated the optimized force-resistance curve in order to significantly reduce error and improve consistency for the device.
Regarding claim 9, You teaches visually displaying the optimized pressure-resistance relationship through a point depiction method using drawing software (i.e., waveform 131) (see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 10, You teaches measuring voltages of a plurality of arrayed sensing points pressurized respectively comprises: measuring voltages of the plurality of arrayed sensing points pressurized by an on-chip integrated analog electronic switch or an off-chip digital-to-analog converter (i.e., signal converting unit 22) (see Column 5, lines 10-41).
Regarding claim 11, You teaches outputting the measured voltages through a conversion unit of the digital-to-analog converter (i.e., signal converting unit 22) (see Column 5, lines 10-41).
Regarding claim 12, You as modified by Wiles as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach appropriately increasing or decreasing the number of the integrated analog electronic switches based on the number of rows and columns of the pressure sensor. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the number signal communication lines depending on the number of sensing points in the sensing device. Furthermore, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (V-D)) and that duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)).
Regarding claim 13, You teaches displaying a zone where the pressure applying device applies the pressure to the arrayed sensing points through a heat map (i.e., hand map meter) (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 14, You as modified by Wiles as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach fitting the corrected pressure-resistance relationship through a curve fitting formula comprises: selecting corresponding curve fitting betweenness to fit the corrected pressure-resistance relationship. However, Wiles teaches fitting the corrected pressure-resistance relationship through a curve fitting formula comprises: selecting corresponding curve fitting betweenness to fit the corrected pressure-resistance relationship (i.e., method utilizes Piecewise Cubic Hermite Interpolating Polynomial (PCHIP) which allows for localized cubic interpolations to be undertaken between a pair of data points) (see Column 5, line 46, to Column 6, line 30). In view of the teaching of Wiles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have interpolated the optimized force-resistance curve in order to significantly reduce error and improve consistency for the device.
Regarding claim 15, You teaches a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when executed by a processor, the program realizes the steps of the method according to claim 1 (i.e., the processor converts measurement values of original data which are the measurement values registered in connection with time and channel into force values of a Newton unit and generates the original data into Newton data by using a computation method of a program stored in the memory) (see Column 5, lines 57-64).
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855