Liquid Magnet Sensor
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2023 and 04/15/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor (US 20100302199; “Taylor”).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8 are a pressure sensor (100), said pressure sensor comprising: a first element (101) comprising a deformable material (106) having a ferrous magnetic fluid (105) therein, said ferrous magnetic fluid (105) exhibiting a magnetic field (¶ 0038, examiner notes when Taylor’s flexible membrane is deformed, the deformation causes movement of ferromagnetic fluid to move disturbing the magnetic field of the magnet); a second element (102) positioned adjacent said first element (101) and comprising an array (200) of Hall effect sensors (¶ 0060, Taylor’s sensors are hall-effect sensors); and said Hall effect sensors (102) detecting changes in the magnetic field when pressure is applied (¶ 0038, Taylor’s “movement of the ferromagnetic fluid modulates the magnetic flux”, examiner asserts Taylor’s Hall-effect sensors detect the changing magnetic flux “below the position of movement”) against said first element (101), said Hall effect sensors (102) generating output signals corresponding to a location and amplitude (¶ 0041, see fig. 4, examiner notes Taylor’s sensor array elements output a signal to a processor related to their position in the array and the magnitude of the touch) of at least one applied pressure on said first element (101).
Regarding claim 2, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, a third element (103, 802) positioned adjacent said second element (102) and comprising a magnet for enhancing the magnetic field of said ferrous magnetic fluid (¶ 0038, “movement of the ferromagnetic fluid disturbs the magnetic field produced by the permanent magnet 103”, ¶ 0062, “a plurality of electrically switchable magnets 802”).
Regarding claim 3, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said magnet (103) comprises a permanent magnet (¶ 0038, “movement of the ferromagnetic fluid disturbs the magnetic field produced by the permanent magnet 103”).
Regarding claim 4, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said magnet (802) comprises an electromagnet (¶ 0062, “a plurality of electrically switchable magnets 802”).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said first element (101) comprises an inner chamber for containing said ferrous magnetic fluid therein (see fig. 1, ¶ 0029, “a ferromagnetic fluid layer 105 located between a compliant, flexible membrane 106 forming the surface of the user-touchable portion 101, and a base layer 107”).
Regarding claim 7, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said second element (102) comprises a circuit board having said array of said Hall effect sensors thereon (see fig. 4, ¶ 0035, “FIG. 4 illustrates a circuit diagram for the user interface device 100. Each of the sensors 102 is individually connected to an interface circuit 400. The interface circuit 400 is connected to a processor 401”).
Regarding claim 9, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, a method for distinctly detecting the amplitude and location of an applied pressure with high resolution (¶ 0041, see fig. 4, examiner notes Taylor’s sensor array elements output a signal to a processor related to their position in the array and the magnitude of the touch), said method comprising: providing a first element (101) comprising a deformable material (106) having a ferrous magnetic fluid (105) therein, said ferrous magnetic fluid exhibiting a magnetic field (¶ 0038, examiner notes when Taylor’s flexible membrane is deformed, the deformation causes movement of ferromagnetic fluid to move disturbing the magnetic field of the magnet); positioning a second element (102) adjacent said first element (101) and wherein said second element (102) comprises an array (200) of Hall effect sensors (¶ 0060, Taylor’s sensors are hall-effect sensors); applying a pressure against said first element causing said Hall effect sensors (102) to detect changes in the magnetic field (¶ 0038, Taylor’s “movement of the ferromagnetic fluid modulates the magnetic flux”, examiner asserts Taylor’s Hall-effect sensors detect the changing magnetic flux “below the position of movement”); and generating output signals, by said Hall effect sensors (102), corresponding to a location and amplitude (¶ 0041, see fig. 4, examiner notes Taylor’s sensor array elements output a signal to a processor related to their position in the array and the magnitude of the touch) of at least one applied pressure on said first element (101).
Regarding claim 10, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, the step of positioning (see figs. 1 and 8) a third element (103, 802) adjacent said second element (102) and wherein said third element (103, 802) comprises a magnet for enhancing the magnetic field of said ferrous magnetic fluid (¶ 0038, “movement of the ferromagnetic fluid disturbs the magnetic field produced by the permanent magnet 103”, ¶ 0062, “a plurality of electrically switchable magnets 802”).
Regarding claim 11, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said step of positioning (see fig. 1) said third element (103) comprises positioning (see fig. 1) a permanent magnet (¶ 0038, “movement of the ferromagnetic fluid disturbs the magnetic field produced by the permanent magnet 103”) underneath said second element (103).
Regarding claim 12, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said step of positioning (see fig. 8) said third element comprises positioning (see fig. 8) an electromagnet underneath (¶ 0062, “a plurality of electrically switchable magnets 802”) said second element (103).
Regarding claim 14, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said step of providing the first element (101) comprises providing an inner chamber within said deformable material for containing said ferrous magnetic fluid therein (see fig. 1, ¶ 0029, “a ferromagnetic fluid layer 105 located between a compliant, flexible membrane 106 forming the surface of the user-touchable portion 101, and a base layer 107”).
Regarding claim 15, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said step of positioning the second element (102) comprises having said array of Hall effect sensors electrically coupled on a printed circuit board (see fig. 4, ¶ 0035, “FIG. 4 illustrates a circuit diagram for the user interface device 100. Each of the sensors 102 is individually connected to an interface circuit 400. The interface circuit 400 is connected to a processor 401”).
Regarding claim 16, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said step of positioning the second element (102) adjacent said first element (101) comprises positioning said second element (102) underneath (see figs. 1 and 8) said first element (101).
Regarding claim 20, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, a situational sensor (100) for detecting orientation or acceleration, said sensor (100) comprising: a first element (101) comprising a ferrous magnetic fluid (105) therein, said ferrous magnetic fluid (105) exhibiting a magnetic field (¶ 0038, examiner notes when Taylor’s flexible membrane is deformed, the deformation causes movement of ferromagnetic fluid to move disturbing the magnetic field of the magnet); a second element (102) positioned underneath (see figs. 1 and 8) said first element (101) and comprising an array of Hall effect sensors (¶ 0060, Taylor’s sensors are hall-effect sensors); and said Hall effect sensors (see previous comment) detecting changes in the magnetic field as said ferrous magnetic fluid redistributes (¶ 0038, Taylor’s “movement of the ferromagnetic fluid modulates the magnetic flux”, examiner asserts Taylor’s Hall-effect sensors detect the changing magnetic flux “below the position of movement”) within said first element (101), corresponding to situational sensor orientation or acceleration (¶ 0041, “The magnitude of the electrical signal is an indicator of the acceleration of the touch”), and generating output signals corresponding to said situational sensor orientation or situational sensor acceleration (¶ 0073-0074, Taylor’s processor provides at least a haptic feedback output, the examiner construes feedback output as evidence Taylor bases the haptic response on sensed characteristics such as acceleration of the touch).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 20100302199; “Taylor”) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said array of Hall effect sensors (102) comprises a two dimensional array (200).
Taylor fails to explicitly disclose a three by three array.
Applicant has not disclosed combining the Hall effect sensors in a three by three array is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design Taylor’s assembly of touch sensors including Hall effect sensors in a three by three array as a matter of design choice to provide adequate touch sensing for a particular application. Doing so provides the user interface device able to detect the location of a plurality of substantially simultaneous separate touches.
Regarding claim 8, Taylor fails to explicitly disclose said first element and said second element are fixed together to prevent any relative movement therebetween.
The Examiner takes official notice that fixing together a touch input to sensors configured to sense the location of a touch on the touch input is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known scheme of fixing a touch input to sensors configured to sense the location of a touch on the touch input to teach Taylor to fix a user-touchable portion to sensors located under the portion. Doing so increases accuracy of locating a touch.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 20100302199; “Taylor”) as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 13, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said step of positioning the second element (102) comprises including a two dimensional array (200) of Hall effect sensors (¶ 0060, Taylor’s sensors are hall-effect sensors) thereon.
Taylor fails to explicitly disclose a three by three array.
Applicant has not disclosed combining the Hall effect sensors in a three by three array is critical or produces unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design Taylor’s method of touch sensors including Hall effect sensors in a three by three array as a matter of design choice to provide adequate touch sensing for a particular application. Doing so provides the user interface device able to detect the location of a plurality of substantially simultaneous separate touches.
Regarding claim 17, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said step of positioning said second element (102) underneath (see figs. 1 and 8) said first element (101).
Taylor fails to explicitly disclose fixing said first and second elements together to prevent any relative movement therebetween.
The Examiner takes official notice that fixing together a touch input to sensors configured to sense the location of a touch on the touch input is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known scheme of fixing a touch input to sensors configured to sense the location of a touch on the touch input to teach Taylor to fix a user-touchable portion to sensors located under the portion. Doing so increases accuracy of locating a touch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 18, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting, at least, the subject matter of claim 9 including said first element and said second element form a sensor and wherein said step of applying pressure against said first element comprises applying a torsion force comprising a downward and twisting force upon said first element causing changes in the magnetic field of the ferrous magnetic fluid and wherein said output signals are indicative of said torsion force applied to said sensor. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Regarding claim 19, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting, at least, the subject matter of claim 9 including said first element and said second element form a sensor and wherein said step of applying pressure against said first element comprises applying linear shear forces upon a surface of said first element, said applied linear shear forces causing changes in the magnetic field of the ferrous magnetic fluid and wherein said output signals are indicative of said linear shear forces applied to said sensor. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights