DETAILED ACTIONAcknowledgment is made of applicant’s amendment filed 8/4/26. 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 .
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 - 4 and 9 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (2017/0199022, hereinafter Anderson – See IDS dated 11/29/23) in view of Maggiali et al. (9,354,703, hereinafter Maggiali).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses an apparatus comprising a strain sensor 100 (See Figs. 1, 9, 11 and 12) having first and second electrodes 11a, 11b that
sandwich a dielectric layer 10, 91 to form a capacitor; a power source 92 configured to
inject a signal VAC between the first and second electrodes of the strain sensor; and a
controller 94 configured to control the power source and to select a frequency of the
power source, wherein the controller is configured to select first to third different
frequencies for determining a strain magnitude, a strain location and an extent of a strain area including keys that are pressed at the same time (See Figs. 1, 9, 11 and 12, See Pg. 2, Paras. 0050 - 0053, Pg. 3, Paras. 0054 - 0055, Pg. 7, Para. 0154, Pg. 8, Para. 0165, Pg. 9, Paras. 0170 - 0171, Pg. 10, Paras. 0172 - 0179 and Pg. 11, Paras. 0181 - 0185). Anderson fails to disclose that the controller is configured to select first to third different frequencies for determining a spatial extent of a single strain area by determining a number of stretched zones based on a relationship between an effective capacitance of the strain sensor and the number of stretched zones. However, Maggliali discloses an apparatus comprising a tactile sensor 10 based on a capacitive sensor matrix S having a flexible pad 12 with a plurality of layers (See Figs. 1 – 3), and a controller 16 for selecting frequencies, determining strain magnitude or intensity, strain location or distribution and a spatial extent of a single strain area by determining a number of stretched zones based on a capacitance of the strain sensor and the stretched zones (See Col. 5, lines 20 – 24, Col. 6, lines 48 - 65 and Col 7, lines 24 – 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson according to the teachings of Maggiali for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a high-efficiency tactile control arrangement that is practical and robust (See Maggiali, Col. 2, lines 33 – 38). Regarding claim 2, in Anderson, the controller 94 is configured to select, the first frequency in a first frequency range, to determine the strain magnitude based on a first response of the strain sensor, the second frequency in a second frequency range, different from the first frequency range, to determine the strain location based on a second response of the strain sensor, and the third frequency in a third frequency range, different from the first and second frequency ranges, to determine the extent of the strain area based on a third response of the strain sensor (See Fig. 12, See Pg. 7, Para. 0154, Pg. 8, Para. 0163, Pg. 9, Paras. 0170 - 0171 and Pg. 10, Paras. 0172 - 0177). Anderson fails to disclose determining the extent of the single strain area based on a third response of the strain sensor. However, Maggliali discloses an apparatus comprising a tactile sensor 10 based on a capacitive sensor matrix S having a flexible pad 12 with a plurality of layers (See Figs. 1 – 3), and a controller 16 for selecting frequencies, determining strain magnitude or intensity, strain location or distribution and a spatial extent of a single strain area by determining a number of stretched zones based on a capacitance of the strain sensor and the stretched zones (See Col. 5, lines 20 – 24, Col. 6, lines 48 - 65 and Col 7, lines 24 – 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson according to the teachings of Maggiali for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a high-efficiency tactile control arrangement that is practical and robust (See Maggiali, Col. 2, lines 33 – 38). Regarding claim 3, in Anderson, the first frequency range of frequencies 72 is between 100 Hz and 1.5 kHz, the second frequency range is between 1.5 kHz and 45 kHz, and the third frequency range is between 45 kHz and 1 MHz (See Pg. 8, Paras. 0160 - 0163).
Regarding claim 4, in Anderson, the controller 94 is configured to calculate an effective capacitance of the strain sensor for each of the first to third frequencies, and to determine the strain magnitude, the strain location, and the extent of the strain area based on the calculated effective capacitances (See Pg. 8, Para. 0164). Anderson fails to disclose determining the extent of the single strain area based on calculated effective capacitances. However, Maggliali discloses an apparatus comprising a tactile sensor 10 based on a capacitive sensor matrix S having a flexible pad 12 with a plurality of layers (See Figs. 1 – 3), and a controller 16 for selecting frequencies, determining strain magnitude or intensity, strain location or distribution and a spatial extent of a single strain area by determining a number of stretched zones based on a capacitance of the strain sensor and the stretched zones (See Col. 5, lines 20 – 24, Col. 6, lines 48 - 65 and Col 7, lines 24 – 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson according to the teachings of Maggiali for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a high-efficiency tactile control arrangement that is practical and robust (See Maggiali, Col. 2, lines 33 – 38). Regarding claim 9, in Anderson, a strain sensor is applied to a target object, the strain sensor comprises first and second electrodes 11a, 11b that sandwich a dielectric layer 10, 91 to form a capacitor; a controller 94 selects a frequency of a signal VAC to be injected into the strain sensor, the signal is applied to the first and second electrodes of the strain sensor with a power source, a return signal is measured from the strain sensor and an effective capacitance of the strain sensor is determined, a strain magnitude, a strain location, and an extend of a strain area experienced by the strain sensor is determined based on the return signal, wherein each of the strain magnitude, the strain location, and the extent of the strain area is measured at a different frequency (See Figs. 1, 9, 11 and 12, See Pg. 2, Paras. 0050 - 0053, Pg. 3, Paras. 0054 - 0055, Pg. 7, Para. 0154, Pg. 8, Para. 0165, Pg. 9, Paras. 0170 - 0171, Pg. 10, Paras. 0172 - 0179 and Pg. 11, Paras. 0182 - 0185). Anderson fails to disclose estimating a spatial extent of a single strain area experienced by the strain sensor based on the return signal by determining a number of stretched zones based on a relationship between an effective capacitance of the strain sensor and the number of stretched zones. However, Maggliali discloses an apparatus comprising a tactile sensor 10 based on a capacitive sensor matrix S having a flexible pad 12 with a plurality of layers (See Figs. 1 – 3), and a controller 16 for selecting frequencies, determining strain magnitude or intensity, strain location or distribution and a spatial extent of a single strain area by determining a number of stretched zones based on a capacitance of the strain sensor and the stretched zones (See Col. 5, lines 20 – 24, Col. 6, lines 48 - 65 and Col 7, lines 24 – 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson according to the teachings of Maggiali for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a high-efficiency tactile control arrangement that is practical and robust (See Maggiali, Col. 2, lines 33 – 38). Regarding claim 10, in Anderson, the strain magnitude, the strain location, and the extent of the strain area are measured with the same first and second electrodes (See Figs. 1 and 10). Anderson fails to disclose that the spatial extent of the single strain area are measured with the same first and second electrodes. However, Maggliali discloses an apparatus comprising a tactile sensor 10 based on a capacitive sensor matrix S having a flexible pad 12 with a plurality of layers (See Figs. 1 – 3), and a controller 16 for selecting frequencies, determining strain magnitude or intensity, strain location or distribution and a spatial extent of a single strain area by determining a number of stretched zones based on a capacitance of the strain sensor and the stretched zones (See Col. 5, lines 20 – 24, Col. 6, lines 48 - 65 and Col 7, lines 24 – 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson according to the teachings of Maggiali for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a high-efficiency tactile control arrangement that is practical and robust (See Maggiali, Col. 2, lines 33 – 38). Regarding claim 11, in Anderson, the controller 94 is configured to select, the first frequency in a first frequency range, to determine the strain magnitude based on a first response of the strain sensor, the second frequency in a second frequency range, different from the first frequency range, to determine the strain location based on a second response of the strain sensor, and the third frequency in a third frequency range, different from the first and second frequency ranges, to determine the extent of the strain area based on a third response of the strain sensor (See Fig. 12, See Pg. 7, Para. 0154, Pg. 8, Para. 0163, Pg. 9, Paras. 0170 - 0171 and Pg. 10, Paras. 0172 - 0177). Anderson fails to disclose that the controller selects the third frequency in a third frequency range, different from the first and second frequency ranges, to determine the spatial extent of the single strain area based on a third response of the strain sensor. However, Maggliali discloses an apparatus comprising a tactile sensor 10 based on a capacitive sensor matrix S having a flexible pad 12 with a plurality of layers (See Figs. 1 – 3), and a controller 16 for selecting frequencies, determining strain magnitude or intensity, strain location or distribution and a spatial extent of a single strain area by determining a number of stretched zones based on a capacitance of the strain sensor and the stretched zones (See Col. 5, lines 20 – 24, Col. 6, lines 48 - 65 and Col 7, lines 24 – 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson according to the teachings of Maggiali for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a high-efficiency tactile control arrangement that is practical and robust (See Maggiali, Col. 2, lines 33 – 38). Regarding claim 12, in Anderson, the first frequency range of the frequencies 72 is between 100 Hz and 1.5 kHZ, the second frequency range is between 1.5 kHz and 45 kHz, and the third frequency range is between 45 kHz and 1 MHz (See Pg. 8, Paras. 0160 - 0163). Regarding claim 13, in Anderson, an effective capacitance of the strain sensor is calculated for each of the first to third frequencies; and the strain magnitude, the strain location, and the extent of the strain area are calculated based on the calculated effective capacitances (See Pg. 8, Para. 0164). Anderson fails to disclose determining the spatial extent of the single strain area based on the calculated effective capacitances. However, Maggliali discloses an apparatus comprising a tactile sensor 10 based on a capacitive sensor matrix S having a flexible pad 12 with a plurality of layers (See Figs. 1 – 3), and a controller 16 for selecting frequencies, determining strain magnitude or intensity, strain location or distribution and a spatial extent of a single strain area by determining a number of stretched zones based on a capacitance of the strain sensor and the stretched zones (See Col. 5, lines 20 – 24, Col. 6, lines 48 - 65 and Col 7, lines 24 – 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson according to the teachings of Maggiali for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device provides a high-efficiency tactile control arrangement that is practical and robust (See Maggiali, Col. 2, lines 33 – 38). 5. Claims 5 - 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable Anderson and Maggiali, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (2020/0271445, hereinafter Zhou - See IDS dated 11/29/23).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson and Maggiali fail to disclose that at least one of the first and second electrodes is configured to crack when a strain is applied to the strain sensor.
However, Zhou discloses a method and apparatus comprising at least one
electrode that cracks in response to strain applied to a strain sensor (See Pg. 8, Para.
0129 and Pg. 11, Para. 0153).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson and Maggiali according to the teachings of Zhou for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device utilizes stretchable strain sensors having resistance recoverable properties that exceed their strain limit (See Zhou, Pg. 14, Para. 0186).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson and Maggiali fail to disclose that cracks are formed periodically in the at least one of the first and second electrodes.
However, in Zhou, cracks are formed periodically in at least one of the first and
second electrodes (See Pg. 8, Para. 0129 and Pg. 11, Para. 0153).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson and Maggiali according to the teachings of Zhou for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device utilizes stretchable strain sensors having resistance recoverable properties that exceed their strain limit (See Zhou, Pg. 14, Para. 0186).
Regarding claim 7, in Anderson, a transmission line model is used (See Pg. 6,
Para. 0145 and Pg. 7, Para. 0151).
Anderson and Maggiali fail to disclose that the cracks increase a resistance of the first and second electrodes.
However, in Zhou, the cracks increase a resistance of the first and second
electrodes (See Pg. 11, Paras. 0150 - 0154).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson and Maggiali according to the teachings of Zhou for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device utilizes stretchable strain sensors having resistance recoverable properties that exceed their strain limit (See Zhou, Pg. 14, Para, 0186).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson and Maggiali fail to disclose that the first and second electrodes include carbon nanotubes and the dielectric layer is flexible, SO that after the strain is removed, cracks that appear in the first and second electrodes disappear as the dielectric material contracts the first and second electrodes.
However, in Zhou, the first and second electrodes include carbon nanotubes
and the dielectric layer is flexible, SO that after the strain is removed, cracks that
appear in the first and second electrodes disappear as the dielectric material contracts
the first and second electrodes (See Pg. 4, Para. 0102, Pg. 7, Para. 0120 and Pg. 11,
Paras. 0150 - 0154).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson and Maggiali according to the teachings of Zhou for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device utilizes stretchable strain sensors having resistance recoverable properties that exceed their strain limit (See Zhou, Pg. 14, Para. 0186).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson and Maggiali fail to disclose that at least one of the first and second electrodes is configured to crack when a strain is applied to the strain sensor.
However, in Zhou, at least one electrode cracks in response to strain applied to
a strain sensor (See Pg. 8, Para. 0129 and Pg. 11, Para. 0153).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson and Maggiali according to the teachings of Zhou for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device utilizes stretchable strain sensors having resistance recoverable properties that exceed their strain limit (See Zhou, Pg. 14, Para. 0186).
Regarding claim 15, in Anderson, a transmission line model is used (See Pg. 6,
Para. 0145 and Pg. 7, Para. 0151).
Anderson and Maggiali fail to disclose that cracks are formed periodically in the at least one of the first and second electrodes, wherein the cracks increase a resistance of the first and second electrodes, and wherein the first and second electrodes include carbon nanotubes and the dielectric layer is flexible, SO that after the strain is removed, cracks that appear in the first and second electrodes disappear as the dielectric material contracts the first and second electrodes.
However, in Zhou, cracks are formed periodically in at least one of the first and
second electrodes, the cracks increase a resistance of the first and second electrodes,
the first and second electrodes include carbon nanotubes and the dielectric layer is
flexible, SO that after the strain is removed, cracks that appear in the first and second
electrodes disappear as the dielectric material contracts the first and second electrodes
(See Pg. 4, Para. 0102, Pg. 7, Para. 0120, Pg. 8, Para. 0129 and Pg. 11, Paras. 0150 -
0154).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Anderson and Maggiali according to the teachings of Zhou for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device utilizes stretchable strain sensors having resistance recoverable properties that exceed their strain limit (See Zhou, Pg. 14, Para. 0186). Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on Pg. 8, Para. 4, Pg. 9, Para. 4, Pg. 10, Para. 1,
Pg. 11, Paras. 1 and 3, Pg. 12, Para. 5 and Pg. 13, Paras. 3 – 4, arguments with respect to these claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. In response to applicant’s arguments that the references do not disclose a controller that is configured to select first to third different frequencies for determining a strain magnitude, a strain location, and a spatial extent of a single strain area by determining a number of stretched zones based on a relationship between an effective capacitance of the strain sensor and the number of stretched zone, it is the examiner’s position that applicant is arguing new issues. With respect to applicant’s argument that the references do not disclose determining an extent of a strain area, it is the examiner’s position that in Anderson, a spatial location or extent of a pressed strain area, including keys that are pressed at the same time, is determined (See Figs. 18 and 19, See Col. 10, Para. 0181), thus the reference still stands.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
8. Beker et al. (12,492,955) disclose devices and methods involving sensing in response to an applied touch or other force. Rogers et al. (10,840,536) disclose stretchable electronic systems with containment chambers. Rogers et al. (2020/0315488) disclose flexible and stretchable electronic systems for epidermal electronics. Park et al. (9,625,330) disclose methods and apparatus concerning multi-tactile sensitive pressure sensors.9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 10/13/26
