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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 12/01/2023.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitations of “a plurality of mechanical unit cells”, “a stiffness value”, “a metamaterial module”, and “a transducer” should be corrected to –the plurality of mechanical unit cells—, --the stiffness value—, --the metamaterial module—, and –the transducer—, for proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-12, 19-22, 26, 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornbluh et al. (Pat. No. 8,436,508) (hereafter Kornbluh) in view of Farhangdoust et al. (Pat. No. US 12,101,041) (hereafter Farhangdoust).
Regarding claim 1, Kornblud teaches a metamaterial force sensor, the sensor comprising:
one or more metamaterial modules, each module comprising a plurality of mechanical unit cells operatively interconnected to allow force transmission therethrough (i.e., meta-material including a deformable structure 12 and a set of activation elements 14) (see Fig. 1a); and
wherein each of the mechanical unit cells provides a predetermined range of displacement, based on preconfigured structural parameters of said unit cell, in response to force transmissions (i.e., the minimum and maximum stiffness provided by meta-material 10 may be tailored before usage during design and fabrication, similar to the conventional design of composite materials) (see Column 11, lines 14-24), and
wherein at least two of the mechanical unit cells of the or each module are configured with different predetermined ranges of displacement in response to force transmissions (i.e., meta-material 10 comprises independent addressing and control for each activation element 14 in the meta-material 10. For embodiments where the meta-material 10 includes dozens or hundreds or thousands of individual activation elements 14, aggregate stiffness for the meta-material may then be tunably controlled by activating an appropriate number of activation elements 14 to achieve a desired stiffness) (see Column 10, line 41, to Column 11, line 24); but does not explicitly teach
a transducer operatively coupled to the or each module, the transducer being configured to output a signal corresponding to a displacement of the or each module in response to a force transmission
Regarding the transducer, Farhangdoust teaches a transducer operatively coupled to the or each module (i.e., piezoelectric element 30 is glued to a meta-substrate cell 10) (see Column 11, line 61 to Column 12, line 20), the transducer being configured to output a signal corresponding to a displacement of the or each module in response to a force transmission (i.e., the voltage for the open circuit of the piezoelectric transducer is a function of the electric displacement along the Z axis) (see Column 9, line 39, to Column 11, line 28). In view of the teaching of Farhangdoust, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the transducers in order to convert the vibrational energy to power output for energy harvesting applications.
Regarding claim 2, Kornbluh teaches that the mechanical unit cells are configured with top and bottom plates (i.e., deformable layers 123) (see Fig. 5A) connected by a number of resilient angular side plates (i.e., rigid struts 125) (see Fig. 5A), and wherein the preconfigured structural parameters for altering the displacement response include height, width (i.e., Width and orientation of scale-type activation elements on a planar compliant layer may also be varied) (see Column 7, line 12, to Column 9, line 9; Column 16, lines 28-42) and thickness of the plates (i.e., an aspect ratio (length vs. width)) (see Column 7, line 12, to Column 9, line 9; Column 16, lines 28-42) as well as internal angles of the angular side plate (i.e., It may be desirable to have activation elements for each of the layers arranged at different angles, to further ensure stiffness uniformity of the meta-material) (see Column 20, lines 29-48).
Regarding claim 3, Kornbluh teaches that the mechanical unit cells are configured with a cross-sectional shape (i.e., When the electroactive polymer actuators are actuated, the resulting change in width of each hexagonal cell 344 snaps the cells into an "hourglass" shape, thus causing a large overall shape in the overall structure 340 as shown in FIG. 7D) (see Fig. 7D); but does not explicitly teach a substantially octagonal cross-sectional shape. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have selected any suitable geometric shape in order to further improve the rigidity or sensitivity of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)).
Regarding claim 4, Kornbluh teaches that the top and bottom plates are connected by four annularly spaced resilient angular side plates (i.e., four rigid struts 125. The rigid component in each active element may comprise any material with a stiffness greater than the stiffness of the deformable structure. Exemplary materials include rigid polymers, rigid plastic plates with sprayed conductive rubber) (see Column 20, line 13, to Column 22, line 23).
Regarding claim 6, Kornbluh teaches that at least three of the mechanical unit cells of the or each module are configured with different predetermined ranges of displacement in response to force transmissions (i.e., meta-material 10 comprises independent addressing and control for each activation element 14 in the meta-material 10. For embodiments where the meta-material 10 includes dozens or hundreds or thousands of individual activation elements 14, aggregate stiffness for the meta-material may then be tunably controlled by activating an appropriate number of activation elements 14 to achieve a desired stiffness) (see Column 10, line 41, to Column 11, line 24).
Regarding claim 7, Kornbluh teaches that the mechanical unit cells of each module are stacked in a substantially upright manner with a first end corresponding to a top part of the module and a second end corresponding to a base part of the module (see Fig. 5A-C).
Regarding claim 8, Kornbluh teaches a force transmission medium configured in mechanical communication with the module at the first end (i.e., top deformable layer 123) (see Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 9, Kornbluh teaches a substrate at the second end for operatively coupling a plurality of modules (i.e., bottom deformable layer 123) (see Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 10, Kornbluh teaches that the mechanical unit cells of the module are arranged so that each unit cell in the stack is preconfigured with a stiffness value (i.e., meta-material 10 comprises independent addressing and control for each activation element 14 in the meta-material 10. For embodiments where the meta-material 10 includes dozens or hundreds or thousands of individual activation elements 14, aggregate stiffness for the meta-material may then be tunably controlled by activating an appropriate number of activation elements 14 to achieve a desired stiffness) (see Column 10, line 41, to Column 11, line 24); but Kornbluh as modified by Farhangdoust as disclosed above does not explicitly teach that the mechanical unit cells of the module are arranged so that each descending unit cell in the stack is preconfigured with an increasingly higher stiffness value. However, it would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have preconfigured the meta-material in any particular pattern as an obvious design choice. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 11, Kornbluh teaches that the mechanical unit cells of the module are arranged so that each unit cell would reach its maximum displacement in response to a force transmission (i.e., the minimum and maximum stiffness provided by meta-material 10 may be tailored before usage during design and fabrication, similar to the conventional design of composite materials) (see Column 11, lines 14-24); but Kornbluh as modified by Farhangdoust as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the mechanical unit cells of the module are arranged so that each unit cell would reach its maximum displacement in response to a force transmission before the next lower unit cell in the stack starts its displacement in response to the same force transmission. However, it would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have preconfigured the meta-material in any particular pattern as an obvious design choice. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 12, Kornbluh teaches that one or more of the mechanical unit cells of each module is coupled, in a substantially horizontal plane, to a like-unit cell by way of one or more mechanical link portions (i.e., joint 128) (see Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 19, Kornbluh teaches a metamaterial force sensor, the sensor comprising:
one or more metamaterial modules, each module comprising a plurality of mechanical unit cells operatively interconnected to allow force transmission therethrough (i.e., meta-material including a deformable structure 12 and a set of activation elements 14) (see Fig. 1a); and
wherein each of the mechanical unit cells is configured with a predetermined stiffness value based on preconfigured structural parameters of said unit cell (i.e., the minimum and maximum stiffness provided by meta-material 10 may be tailored before usage during design and fabrication, similar to the conventional design of composite materials) (see Column 11, lines 14-24), and
wherein at least two of the mechanical unit cells of the or each module are configured with different stiffness values (i.e., meta-material 10 comprises independent addressing and control for each activation element 14 in the meta-material 10. For embodiments where the meta-material 10 includes dozens or hundreds or thousands of individual activation elements 14, aggregate stiffness for the meta-material may then be tunably controlled by activating an appropriate number of activation elements 14 to achieve a desired stiffness) (see Column 10, line 41, to Column 11, line 24); but does not explicitly teach a transducer operatively coupled to the or each module, the transducer being configured to output a signal corresponding to a displacement of the or each module in response to a force transmission,.
Regarding the transducer, Farhangdoust teaches a transducer operatively coupled to the or each module (i.e., piezoelectric element 30 is glued to a meta-substrate cell 10) (see Column 11, line 61 to Column 12, line 20), the transducer being configured to output a signal corresponding to a displacement of the or each module in response to a force transmission (i.e., the voltage for the open circuit of the piezoelectric transducer is a function of the electric displacement along the Z axis) (see Column 9, line 39, to Column 11, line 28). In view of the teaching of Farhangdoust, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the transducers in order to convert the vibrational energy to power output for energy harvesting applications.
Regarding claim 20, Kornbluh teaches that the mechanical unit cells of each module are stacked in a substantially upright manner (see Fig. 5A-C).
Regarding claim 21, Kornbluh teaches that the mechanical unit cells of the module are arranged so that each descending unit cell in the stack is preconfigured (i.e., meta-material 10 comprises independent addressing and control for each activation element 14 in the meta-material 10. For embodiments where the meta-material 10 includes dozens or hundreds or thousands of individual activation elements 14, aggregate stiffness for the meta-material may then be tunably controlled by activating an appropriate number of activation elements 14 to achieve a desired stiffness) (see Column 10, line 41, to Column 11, line 24); but Kornbluh as modified by Farhangdoust as disclosed above does not explicitly teach that the mechanical unit cells of the module are arranged so that each descending unit cell in the stack is preconfigured with a higher stiffness value. However, it would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have preconfigured the meta-material in any particular pattern as an obvious design choice. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 22, Kornbluh teaches that the mechanical unit cells of the module are arranged so that each unit cell would reach its maximum displacement in response to a force transmission (i.e., the minimum and maximum stiffness provided by meta-material 10 may be tailored before usage during design and fabrication, similar to the conventional design of composite materials) (see Column 11, lines 14-24); but Kornbluh as modified by Farhangdoust as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the mechanical unit cells of the module are arranged so that each unit cell would reach its maximum displacement in response to a force transmission before the next lower unit cell in the stack starts its displacement in response to the same force transmission. However, it would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have preconfigured the meta-material in any particular pattern as an obvious design choice. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 26, Kornbluh teaches a method of constructing a metamaterial force sensor in accordance with claim 1, the method comprising the steps of:
selecting a predetermined sensitivity range for the sensor (i.e., the minimum and maximum stiffness provided by meta-material 10 may be tailored before usage during design and fabrication, similar to the conventional design of composite materials) (see Column 11, lines 14-24);
selecting a predetermined effective force detection range for the sensor (i.e., damping control of the structure may be achieved when a lower voltage is used for electrostatic clamping embodiments so that the activation elements can slide under load but still resist an applied force by a controlled amount) (see Column 29, line 38, to Column 30, lines 3-62);
preconfiguring structural parameters of a plurality of mechanical unit cells to alter a stiffness value in respect of each unit cell such that the unit cells, in combination, cover at least the predetermined sensitivity range and the predetermined effective force detection range (i.e., meta-material 10 comprises independent addressing and control for each activation element 14 in the meta-material 10. For embodiments where the meta-material 10 includes dozens or hundreds or thousands of individual activation elements 14, aggregate stiffness for the meta-material may then be tunably controlled by activating an appropriate number of activation elements 14 to achieve a desired stiffness) (see Column 10, line 41, to Column 11, line 24);
interconnecting the plurality of mechanical unit cells to form a metamaterial module (i.e., stacking several of the meta-materials could form a thicker meta-material) (see Column 11, line 25, to Column 12, line 8); but does not explicitly teach
coupling a transducer to the module to output a signal corresponding to a displacement of the module in response to a force transmission.
Regarding the transducer, Farhangdoust teaches coupling a transducer to the module (i.e., piezoelectric element 30 is glued to a meta-substrate cell 10) (see Column 11, line 61 to Column 12, line 20) to output a signal corresponding to a displacement of the module in response to a force transmission (i.e., the voltage for the open circuit of the piezoelectric transducer is a function of the electric displacement along the Z axis) (see Column 9, line 39, to Column 11, line 28). In view of the teaching of Farhangdoust, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the transducers in order to convert the vibrational energy to power output for energy harvesting applications.
Regarding claim 29, Kornbluh teaches that each of the mechanical unit cells in the metamaterial module is configured to overlap in coverage of the predetermined sensitivity range and the predetermined effective force detection range in respect to an adjacently arranged unit cell (i.e., Rigid activation elements on a compliant planar structure and having activation control in two dimensions permit controllable stiffness in both in-plane directions. This allows dynamic directional control of planar stiffness, i.e., stiff in one direction while compliant in another direction, and then a change to the opposite stiffnesses in each direction. Bending and planar stiffness may also be independently varied for some meta-material designs, e.g., by controlling the relative stiffness on opposite sides of a compliant layer) (see Column 29, line 38, to Column 30, lines 3-62).
Regarding claim 30, Kornbluh teaches that the mechanical unit cells of each module are stacked in a substantially upright manner (see Fig. 5A-C).
Regarding claim 31, Kornbluh teaches that the mechanical unit cells of the module are arranged so that each descending unit cell in the stack is preconfigured (i.e., meta-material 10 comprises independent addressing and control for each activation element 14 in the meta-material 10. For embodiments where the meta-material 10 includes dozens or hundreds or thousands of individual activation elements 14, aggregate stiffness for the meta-material may then be tunably controlled by activating an appropriate number of activation elements 14 to achieve a desired stiffness) (see Column 10, line 41, to Column 11, line 24); but Kornbluh as modified by Farhangdoust as disclosed above does not explicitly teach that the mechanical unit cells of the module are arranged so that each descending unit cell in the stack is preconfigured with a higher stiffness value. However, it would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have preconfigured the meta-material in any particular pattern as an obvious design choice. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornbluh et al. (Pat. No. 8,436,508) (hereafter Kornbluh) in view of Farhangdoust et al. (Pat. No. US 12,101,041) (hereafter Farhangdoust) and in further view of Folkmer et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0167896) (hereafter Folkmer).
Regarding claim 16, Kornbluh as modified by Farhangdoust as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the transducer operates magnetically to determine the displacement of the or each module in response to a force transmission and outputs the displacement information as an electrical signal. However, teaches that the transducer operates magnetically (i.e., a magnetic sensor element can, for example, be based on a Hall sensor which generates a different voltage depending on the position within a magnetic field and thus depending on the experienced magnetic flux density. Thus, preferably with a fixed reference magnetic field, the measured voltage can be used to detect the relative position of the Hall sensor to this magnetic field. This measurement principle can be used in particular to realize a distance measurement (and thus stress or strain measurement) between different areas on the substrate) (see paragraph section [0082]) to determine the displacement of the or each module in response to a force transmission and outputs the displacement information as an electrical signal (i.e., the one or more sensor elements are configured for resistive, preferably piezoresistive, optical, magnetic, inductive, and/or capacitive measurement of deformations, stresses, forces, and/or torques of the substrate) (see paragraph section [0077]). In view of the teaching of Folkmer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have add another magnetic displacement sensor in order to further improve measurement accuracy.
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