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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s reply filed 07/20/2026 which has amendments to the claims and Applicant's arguments related to the previous rejection. The above have been entered and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has not traversed the examiner’s 04/03/2026 assertion of official notice, therefore the examiner’s statement regarding a touch input to sense the location of a touch being well-known in the art is taken to be admitted prior art.
Applicant argues new issue related to a magnet positioned below an array of Hall effect sensors overcomes the outstanding rejections of independent claims 1 and 20. Regarding this assertion, please see the final rejection below.
Applicant further argues that the amendment of claim 9 places claims 9-19 in a condition for allowance. Regarding this assertion, please see the Allowable Subject Matter section below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “said Hall effect sensors generating output signals indicative of said torsion force or said linear shear force applied to said sensor” is unclear what structural aspect of applicant’s Hall effect sensors produces these specific signal outputs and/or if this limitation requires certain signal processing not delimited by the claim.
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, 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 20100302199; “Taylor”), in view of Moss (US 5396802; “Moss”).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses, in figures 1-2, 4 and 8 are a sensor (100), said 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 below said first element (101) and comprising an array (200) of Hall effect sensors (¶ 0060, Taylor’s sensors are hall-effect sensors), 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); and a third element (103) positioned below said first element (101) such that the third element (103) is positioned between the first element (101) and the second element (102), the third element (103) comprising a magnet (¶ 0033, “permanent magnet”).
Examiner notes that the limitation: “for enhancing the magnetic field of said ferrous magnetic fluid” is an intended use type statement. Applicant is reminded that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Taylor fails to disclose a third element positioned below said second element such that the second element is positioned between the first element and the third element.
Moss teaches, in figures 1-2, a third element (4) positioned below said second element (6) such that the second element (6) is positioned between the first element (15) and the third element (4), the third element (4) comprising a magnet (col. 4, line 25, “permanent magnet”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Moss’s scheme of positioning a permanent magnet on the opposite side of a Hall effect sensor from a ferromagnetic reservoir to reconfigure Taylor’s interface since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of constructing a ferrofluid pressure transducer.
Regarding claim 2, Taylor and Moss disclose, in Taylor’s figures 1-2, 4 and 8, wherein the Hall effect sensors (Taylor (102)) are further configured to detect changes in the magnetic field when a torsion force or a linear shear force is applied (Taylor, ¶ 0038, examiner notes “deformation of the flexible membrane 106 causes the ferromagnetic fluid in the ferromagnetic fluid layer 105 to move”, the examiner asserts since any force exerted on Taylor’s flexible member is not exerted by welded or glued elements, the force requires a normal force such as a direct push or to activate friction needed to apply a torsion or linear shear force; ¶ 0060, Taylor’s hall sensors detect the movement of the ferromagnetic fluid) against said first element (101) (examiner notes that the limitation, “said Hall effect sensors generating output signals indicative of said torsion force or said linear shear force applied to said sensor” is a functional language type limitation. Applicant is reminded that functionality must be distinguished from the prior art structure's inherent functionality. In the instant case, Taylor’s Hall effect sensor array is capable of generating output signals indicative of said torsion force or said linear shear force applied to said sensor, See MPEP 2114.)
Regarding claim 3, Taylor and Moss disclose, in Taylor’s 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 and Moss disclose, in Taylor’s figures 1-2, 4 and 8, said magnet (802) comprises an electromagnet (¶ 0062, “a plurality of electrically switchable magnets 802”).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor and Moss disclose, in Taylor’s 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 and Moss disclose, in Taylor’s 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 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 a third element (103) positioned below the first element (101) such that the third element (103) is positioned between the first element (101) and the second element (102), the third element (103) comprising a magnet (¶ 0033, “permanent magnet”), wherein said Hall effect sensors (see previous comment) detect 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).
Examiner notes that the limitation: “for enhancing the magnetic field of the ferrous magnetic fluid” is an intended use type statement. Applicant is reminded that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Taylor fails to disclose a third element positioned below said second element such that the second element is positioned between the first element and the third element.
Moss teaches, in figures 1-2, a third element (4) positioned below the second element (6) such that the second element (6) is positioned between the first element (15) and the third element (4), the third element (4) comprising a magnet (col. 4, line 25, “permanent magnet”).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Moss’s scheme of positioning a permanent magnet on the opposite side of a Hall effect sensor from a ferromagnetic reservoir to reconfigure Taylor’s interface since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of constructing a ferrofluid pressure transducer.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 9, although Taylor discloses a method of detecting position and magnitude of a touch including providing a user-touchable portion with a flexible membrane having a ferromagnetic fluid layer where deformation of the flexible membrane causes movement of the ferromagnetic fluid disturbing the magnetic field of a magnet), positioning a Hall effect sensor array below the user-touchable portion, applying pressure against the user-touchable portion causing the Hall effect sensor array to detect changes in magnetic flux below the position of movement, and generating output signals by the Hall effect sensors related to their position in the array and the magnitude of the touch; Taylor does not disclose applicant’s method including the Hall effect sensor array outputs signals indicative of torsion or linear sheer forces. Furthermore, no other prior art can be found to motivate or teach applicant’s method including the output signals are indicative of the torsion force or the linear shear forces applied to the sensor, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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.
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