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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I directed to claims 1-12 and 16-18 in the reply filed on 11 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 August 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of claim 18, it appears that “equation B” should be replaced with --equation PB--. Further the clear that PB refers to “perceived brightness”, as shown in paragraph 46 of the specification. This would also distinguish the brightness being calculated from the variable “B” that is used to represent a color component. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the gold layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2, upon which claim 4 depends, recites a limitation for a “gold electrode”, but does not recite a gold layer.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the images of LED lighting" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 16 and are rejected for the same reason.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 9,625,341 to Haick et al. (Haick) in view of US Patent No. 11,590,658 to Takahashi et al. (Takahashi).
Claim 1
With regard to tactile sensors that mimic the functions of human skin by sensing pressure, vibration and humidity simultaneously and generate electric signals as a result thereof; Takahashi teaches the simultaneous detection of pressure and humidity and the detection of pressure repeatedly, which suggest vibration (col. 9, lines 46 – col. 10, line 4; col. 10, lines 24-33; col. 21, lines 39-44)
Haick does not teach a machine learning assisted data processor that interprets the electric signals from the sensors and quantitively perceives the stimulation in terms of pressure, vibration, and environmental humidity.
Takahashi teaches using a machine learning model to estimate a feature amount of a pressure sensor or tactile information (col. 3, line 20 – col. 4, lines 21; col. 5, lines 1-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined sensing of pressure and humidity, as taught by Haick, to include machine learning as taught by Takahashi, because then the detection would have more accurately imitated the human perception of multiple signals for interpreting tactile information (Takahashi, col. 1, lines 23-38).
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haick in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3761510 to Tayeb et al. (Tayeb).
Claim 2
Haick and Takahashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends. Further, Haick teaches a single-ion conducting electrolyte, which provides contact electrification, serves as a hygroscopic layer and produces DC hygroelectric signals in response to humidity; and a gold electrode
Haick and Takahashi do not teach a separatable aluminum electrode as a counter triboelectrification layer that produces AC triboelectric signals in response to contact. Tayeb teaches triboelectric layers that use aluminum foil (par. 47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined sensing of pressure and humidity, as taught by Haick and Takahashi, to include a triboelectric layer that uses aluminum foil, because then the sensor’s selectivity would have been enhanced (Tayeb, pars. 47, 48).
Claim 3
Haick and Takahashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claims 2 and 3 depend. Haick and Takahashi do not teach that triboelectric and hygroelectric signals from the sensors are recorded and then transmitted to a main server computer for interpretation with the help of machine learning, imitating the peripheral and central nervous systems of a human. Tayeb teaches using a server on a network to process sensor output (pars. 52, 57; Fig. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined sensing of pressure and humidity, as taught by Haick and Takahashi, to include a server on a network, as taught by Tayeb, because then more processing resources would have been available.
Claim 6
Haick teaches that the hygroscopic contact electrification layer is integrated into triboelectric nanogenerators (TENGs) so the sensor is sensitive to static stimuli in addition to the dynamic stimuli (col. 9, line 52 – col. 10, line 4; col. 10, lines 24-33; col. 21, lines 39-44; Fig. 4D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication 2024/0302228 to Cao et al. teaches a sensor for multifunctional sensing.
US Patent Application Publication 2016/0250015 to Kim et al teaches a stretchable electronics for an artificial skin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights