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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/22/2026 has been considered and addresses the deficiencies listed in the IDS filed 12/10/2024, but does not address the missing element NPL-71 of the IDS filed 4/25/2025. This is an English translation of Guangzhi et al “Conventional Foam Flooding Technology” pp18-21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that the instant invention presents a low-friction contact surface (as taught by e.g. instant paragraph 0035).
Examiner’s position is that such a limitation does not appear in the claims.
Examiner notes that the prior art does not mention the word friction either, and future amendments incorporating this limitation would probably overcome the Aldelson references.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that the cited prior art does not teach a plurality of particles that are at least partially embedded in the deformable layer.
Examiner’s position is that Adelson89 teaches a plurality of particles that are embedded in a deformable layer (paragraph 0020 “The surface of the elastomer is coated with a reflective layer 2, referred to as the "skin," which is made, for example, from an elastomeric paint comprising metallic powder embedded in an elastomeric material.”). The teachings of AdelsonWO are used to improve this invention by having the particles form non-planar protrusions that permit air to flow between them (paragraph 0098 “the reflective membrane is made with a very fine texture” and “the reflective membrane is made with a very fine texture that provides minute passages for the entrapped air to escape.”).
Examiner acknowledges that AdelsonWO does not teach the particles being embedded (‘a reflective membrane made as a thin layer of particles’). These particles are attached ‘without a medium or binder’ so there’s no glue, but as there is no teaching of how they are attached one must look for an obvious answer (see also Occam’s razor). In this case the particles are taught as being harder than the elastomer on which they are placed (paragraph 0066 “The reflective membrane is also elastomeric, and typically has a hardness that is equal to or greater than that of the clear elastomer body.”), and when one places hard objects on a softer surface they obviously embed themselves into the surface, much like placing marbles on mud or sand. This is especially true when there is force applied to the particles such as in AdelsonWO Figure 2B, where the “elastomer with reflective membrane” is put into contact with a surface which deforms the layer and would further embed the particles into the elastomer body.
As such, the combination of the Adelson references is deemed to read on the claimed limitation, especially when the invention is being used i.e. the layer is placed in contact with a surface.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 75-77, 82-83, 85, 87-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adelson (United States Patent Application Publication 20090315989 hereafter referred to as “Adelson89”) in view of Adelson et al (WO 2013016729 hereafter referred to as “AdelsonWO”), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “AA”.
As to claim 75, Adelson89 teaches a retrographic sensor (Abstract “A tactile sensor”) comprising:
a substrate formed of a pliable material (Figure 9, paragraph 0037 “clear elastomer 182”)
having a first hardness (paragraph 0021 “the hardness of the elastomer, as measured on the Shore A scale, will range between 5 and 90”),
the substrate capable of optically transmitting an image therethrough (paragraph 0005 “a volume of elastomer that is capable of transmitting an image”);
a deformable layer disposed on the substrate (Figure 9, paragraph 0037 “reflective skin 180 covers the clear elastomer 182”),
the deformable layer including a first surface adjacent to the substrate (Figure 9, reflective skin 180 is adjacent to elastomer 182) and
a second surface opposing the first surface (in Figure 9, reflective skin 180 has a top that is adjacent to finger 188),
wherein the deformable layer is formed of a material that reflects light passing through the substrate and incident on the first surface (Figure 9, paragraph 0005 “The reflective skin is illuminated through the volume of elastomer by one or more light sources, and has particles that reflect light incident on the reflective skin from within the volume of elastomer.”); and
a plurality of particles, wherein the plurality of particles are at least partially embedded in the material of the deformable layer (paragraph 0020 “The surface of the elastomer is coated with a reflective layer 2, referred to as the "skin," which is made, for example, from an elastomeric paint comprising metallic powder embedded in an elastomeric material.”).
Adelson89 does not teach the plurality of particles form a plurality of non-planar protrusions from the second surface, and a pattern of the non-planar protrusions forms interstitial channels that permit a flow of air between the non-planar protrusions on the second surface of the deformable layer. However, it is known in the art as taught by AdelsonWO.
AdelsonWO teaches a topographic sensor comprising an elastomer with a reflective membrane that conforms to a surface (Figures 2A-D) comprising a plurality of particles (paragraph 0067 “The reflective membrane comprises reflective particles), in which the plurality of particles form a plurality of non-planar protrusions from the second surface (paragraph 0098 “the reflective membrane is made with a very fine texture” and particles are not planar), and a pattern of the non-planar protrusions forms interstitial channels that permit a flow of air between the non-planar protrusions on the second surface of the deformable layer (paragraph 0098 “the reflective membrane is made with a very fine texture that provides minute passages for the entrapped air to escape.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a plurality of particles, the plurality of particles form a plurality of non-planar protrusions from the second surface, and a pattern of the non-planar protrusions forms interstitial channels that permit a flow of air between the non-planar protrusions on the second surface of the deformable layer, in order to reduce or eliminate trapped air.
Adelson89 as modified by AdelsonWO above does not teach the plurality of particles have a second hardness greater than the first hardness of the pliable material of the substrate. However, AdelsonWO teaches the hardness of the reflective layer (that contacts the surface) is greater than that of the substrate (paragraph 0066 “The reflective membrane is also elastomeric, and typically has a hardness that is equal to or greater than that of the clear elastomer body.”) and as the teachings of AdelsonWO in paragraph 0098 are directed to having air passages between the particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of particles (that contact the surface) have a second hardness greater than the first hardness of the pliable material of the substrate, in order to have them not deform first and thereby close the air passageways.
As to claim 76, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition AdelsonWO teaches the pattern includes at least one of a closely spaced array (paragraph 0039 “the reflective membrane's surface is made with a microtexture”), a regular array, and a plurality of locally hexagonal arrays. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the pattern include at least one of a closely spaced array, a regular array, and a plurality of locally hexagonal arrays, in order to make sure there’s an air passage regardless of the object’s orientation on the material.
As to claim 77, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition Adelson89 teaches a uniform dispersion of material on the reflective skin (Figure 11, paragraph 0042 “a gridwork of fibers”), and when the teachings of AdelsonWO directed to a “fine surface structure (paragraph 0067) were obtained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the particles replicate the uniform spacing of the fabric and be monodisperse, in order to insure all of the reflective skin was enabled with passages for escaping air (as opposed to a random dusting of powder that might leave untreated areas).
As to claim 82, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition AdelsonWO teaches the plurality of particles include non-spherical particles (paragraph 0032 teaches “the fine powder is talc” and as talc powder is produced by processing mineral ore, it is obvious that tac powder comprises particles of many sizes & shapes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of particles include non-spherical particles, in order to take advantage of the low cost & ease of manufacture of talc powder.
As to claim 83, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition AdelsonWO teaches the plurality of particles are polydisperse (paragraph 0032 “the reflective membrane is covered with a fine powder” and it is obvious that powder is not uniformly spaced). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the particles be polydisperse, in order to more easily apply them (it’s easier to shake a powder over a surface than make sure the particles are orderly & evenly spaced).
Adelson89 as modified by AdelsonWO above does not explicitly teach the particles are polydisperse with a first standard deviation about a mean particle size falling within a range of 1-10 microns. However, the dispersion of particles on the substrate affects the ability of air to escape – too few and there are no passageways between particles, too many and they aggregate & contaminate the surface measurement results – and as such is a result effective variable.
As the dispersion is a results effective variable and there is a limited range of dispersion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed dispersion, in order to ensure air passageways while reducing aggregate buildup. See MPEP 2144.05(II). As the applicant has not indicated that the claimed dispersion is critical or yield an unexpected result (paragraph 0041 of the instant specification indicates the particles “may be” polydisperse with the claimed dispersion), an obviousness-type rejection is proper.
As to claim 85, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition AdelsonWO teaches the plurality of particles are formed of one or more of a silica (paragraph 0034 “the fine powder is … silica”), a glass, a melamine, a polystyrene, a polymethylmethacrylate, a polybutylmethacrylate, a styrene/acrylate copolymer, a cellulose, and a polylactic acid.
As to claim 87, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition Adeldon89 teaches the pliable material of the substrate has a Shore A hardness less than 40 (paragraph 0021 “the hardness of the elastomer, as measured on the Shore A scale, will range between 5 and 90”).
As to claim 88, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition Adelson89 teaches the plurality of particles have Page 4 of 7 a Shore A hardness greater than 40 (paragraph 0021 “the hardness of the elastomer, as measured on the Shore A scale, will range between 5 and 90”).
As to claim 89, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition AdelsonWO teaches the pliable material of the substrate has first Shore A hardness less than a second Shore A hardness of the plurality of particles (paragraph 0066 “The reflective membrane is also elastomeric, and typically has a hardness that is equal to or greater than that of the clear elastomer body.”).
While AdelsonWO does not specify a Shore A hardness difference of at least 10, the Shore scale ranges from 0 to 100 and a difference of 10 represents a noticeable difference in flexibility between two materials. As the teachings of AdelsonWO in paragraph 0098 are directed to having air passages between the particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to choose materials with hardnesses differing by at least 10, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
As to claim 90, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition Adelson89 teaches the pliable material of the substrate is an optically clear elastomer(Figure 9, paragraph 0037 “clear elastomer 182”).
As to claim 91, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition Adelson89 teaches the plurality of particles include at least one of metallic particles (paragraph 0020 “The surface of the elastomer is coated with a reflective layer 2, referred to as the "skin," which is made, for example, from an elastomeric paint comprising metallic powder embedded in an elastomeric material.”), non-metallic particles, and titanium dioxide particles.
As to claim 92, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition Adelson89 teaches an imaging system coupled to the substrate on a side of the substrate opposing the first surface of the deformable layer, the imaging system configured to capture a plurality of images of the deformable layer through the pliable material of the substrate (Figure 9, paragraph 0037 “An array of cameras 186 is placed a short distance from the elastomer and skin. The cameras can be arranged so that their image slightly overlap, and these images can be combined into a single large image by standard stitching techniques.”).
As to claim 93, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 92, in addition Adelson89 teaches an illumination system configured to illuminate the deformable layer through the pliable material of the substrate (Figure 8, paragraph 0035 “two light sources, 80 and 82, which illuminate the skin 84 thought the elastomer 79”).
As to claim 94, Adelson89 teaches a retrographic sensor comprising:
a substrate formed of a pliable material (Figure 9, paragraph 0037 “clear elastomer 182”)
having a first hardness (paragraph 0021 “the hardness of the elastomer, as measured on the Shore A scale, will range between 5 and 90”),
the substrate capable of optically transmitting an image therethrough (paragraph 0005 “a volume of elastomer that is capable of transmitting an image”);
a deformable layer disposed on the substrate (Figure 9, paragraph 0037 “reflective skin 180 covers the clear elastomer 182”),
the deformable layer including a first surface adjacent to the substrate (Figure 9, reflective skin 180 is adjacent to elastomer 182) and
a second surface opposing the first surface (in Figure 9, reflective skin 180 has a top that is adjacent to finger 188),
wherein the deformable layer is formed of a material that reflects light passing through the substrate and incident on the first surface (Figure 9, paragraph 0005 “The reflective skin is illuminated through the volume of elastomer by one or more light sources, and has particles that reflect light incident on the reflective skin from within the volume of elastomer.”); and
a plurality of particles, wherein the plurality of particles are at least partially embedded in the material of the deformable layer (paragraph 0020 “The surface of the elastomer is coated with a reflective layer 2, referred to as the "skin," which is made, for example, from an elastomeric paint comprising metallic powder embedded in an elastomeric material.”).
Adelson89 does not teach wherein the plurality of particles are polydisperse with a first standard deviation about a mean particle size falling within a range of 1-10 microns. However, while AdelsonWO does not explicitly teach the plurality of particles are polydisperse with a first standard deviation about a mean particle size falling within a range of 1-10 microns, the dispersion of particles on the substrate affects the ability of air to escape – too few and there are no passageways between particles, too many and they aggregate & contaminate the surface measurement results – and as such is a result effective variable. As the dispersion is a results effective variable and there is a limited range of dispersion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed dispersion, in order to ensure air passageways while reducing aggregate buildup. See MPEP 2144.05(II). As the applicant has not indicated that the claimed dispersion is critical or yield an unexpected result (paragraph 0041 of the instant specification indicates the particles “may be” polydisperse with the claimed dispersion), an obviousness-type rejection is proper.
Adelson89 does not teach the plurality of particles form a plurality of non-planar protrusions from the second surface, and a pattern of the non-planar protrusions forms interstitial channels that permit a flow of air between the non-planar protrusions on the second surface of the deformable layer. However, it is known in the art as taught by AdelsonWO.
AdelsonWO teaches the plurality of particles form a plurality of non-planar protrusions from the second surface (paragraph 0098 “the reflective membrane is made with a very fine texture), and a pattern of the non-planar protrusions forms interstitial channels that permit a flow of air between the non-planar protrusions on the second surface of the deformable layer (paragraph 0098 “the reflective membrane is made with a very fine texture that provides minute passages for the entrapped air to escape.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a plurality of particles, the plurality of particles form a plurality of non-planar protrusions from the second surface, and a pattern of the non-planar protrusions forms interstitial channels that permit a flow of air between the non-planar protrusions on the second surface of the deformable layer, in order to reduce or eliminate trapped air.
Adelson89 as modified by AdelsonWO above does not teach the plurality of particles have a second hardness greater than the first hardness of the pliable material of the substrate. However, AdelsonWO teaches the hardness of the reflective layer (that contacts the surface) is greater than that of the substrate (paragraph 0066 “The reflective membrane is also elastomeric, and typically has a hardness that is equal to or greater than that of the clear elastomer body.”) and as the teachings of AdelsonWO in paragraph 0098 are directed to having air passages between the particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of particles (that contact the surface) have a second hardness greater than the first hardness of the pliable material of the substrate, in order to have them not deform first and thereby close the air passageways.
Claims 78-81, 84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AA, and further in view of Guangzhou Batai Chem Ltd. (Polymethylsilsesquioxane BT-9276) hereafter referred to as “GBC”.
As to claim 78, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, in addition AdelsonWO teaches the plurality of particles are silica (paragraph 0034 teaches “the fine powder is … silica”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of particles be silica, in order to take advantage of the low cost and ease of manufacture of silica powder.
Adelson89 teaches a uniform dispersion of material on the reflective skin (Figure 11, paragraph 0042 “a gridwork of fibers”), and when the teachings of AdelsonWO directed to a “fine surface structure (paragraph 0067) were obtained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the particles replicate the uniform spacing of the fabric and be monodisperse, in order to insure all of the reflective skin was enabled with passages for escaping air (as opposed to a random dusting of powder that might leave untreated areas).
Additionally, silica is silicon combined with oxygen and silicone is the name for a family of silicon-based compounds, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to, given the teaching of silica powder, encounter silicone powder, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
GBC teaches silicone powder (1st page “Polymethylsilsesquioxane BT-9276 is spherical silicone powder”) comprising microspheres (1st page, “Solid spherical, non-plastic particles”, and “Average particle size (μm) - 7”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of particles be microspheres, in order to better cover the reflective layer without agglomeration.
As to claims 79-81, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 78, with the exception of the limitations directed to the average diameter of the plurality of particles (“about 5”, “between 5-10” & “between 1-25” microns, respectively). However, it is known in the art as taught by GBC. GBC teaches the claimed average diameter of the plurality of particles (1st page, “Average particle size (μm) - 7”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the claimed average diameters, in order to better provide smooth flowing across a surface.
As to claim 84, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, with the exception of the plurality of particles are formed of polymethylsilsesquioxane. However, AdelsonWO teaches silica powder (paragraph 0034 teaches “the fine powder is … silica”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to, given the teaching of silica powder, encounter silicone powder, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07), and GBC teaches a silicone powder wherein the plurality of particles are formed of polymethylsilsesquioxane (1st page “Polymethylsilsesquioxane BT-9276 is spherical silicone powder”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of particles be formed of polymethylsilsesquioxane, in order to better cover the reflective layer without agglomeration.
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AA, and further in view of Mueller et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20130272585).
As to claim 86, AA teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 75, with the exception of the plurality of particles are formed of one or more of nylon and polytetrafluoroethylene. However, the composition of the particles is a results effective variable as demonstrated by Mueller.
Mueller teaches the surface analysis of an object that is pressed against a clear substrate, through which light is shined (Figure 1, with clear layer 120 and deformable layer 122, paragraph 0009 “The fingerprint pattern may be determined by determining a topography of the skin site”), also the use of coatings to the object 126 that change the effect of the reflected light in a desired way (paragraphs 0053-0057, e.g. a coating that reduces subsurface optical reflections, that reduces spectral variations, that alters reflectance properties, etc.).
As the material of the particles is a results effective variable and there are a limited number of appropriate particle types, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed materials, in order to modify the reflected light in a desired manner. See MPEP 2144.05(II). As the applicant has not indicated that the claimed dispersion is critical or yield an unexpected result (paragraph 0043 of the instant specification indicates a wide variety of materials that may be used, and teaches “More generally, any rigid material that is available in suitable sizes and shapes may be used as particles 402 in a contact surface”), an obviousness-type rejection is proper.
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 JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877