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 invention I (claims 1-13 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 01/30/2026 is acknowledged. However, upon further consideration the restriction requirement of inventions I and II has been withdrawn and all claims have been considered for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2024 and 07/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements 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 (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 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, 7, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (US Pat. 2015/0135857).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura et al. teaches a sensing system (1) comprising: a groove (23 to 26) formed on a surface (6), the groove comprising an opening (as shown in fig. 1-3 and disclosed in para. 0034), wherein a distance between a first point and a second point (indicated with dotted lines 23 in fig. 1) on the surface and across the opening is configured to vary in response to a first deformation on the surface (as shown in fig. 3 and disclosed in para. 0035); a first sensor (7) mechanically coupled to the first point and the second point (as shown in fig. 1 and disclosed in para. 0034), wherein an electrical property (resistance) of the first sensor (7) is configured to change in response to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point (as discussed in para. 0035); and a detection circuitry (U1, U2 and external circuit, as disclosed in para. 0039) configured to: detect the change in the electrical property of the first sensor (7) (as shown in fig. 4 and disclosed in para. 0041-0045); and generate an output (OUT 1) indicating a presence of the first deformation using the detection of the change in the electrical property of the first sensor (7) (as disclosed in 0041-0045).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Kawamura et al. teaches wherein the sensor (7) comprises a resistive strain gauge (as shown in fig. 1-4) wherein a resistance of the resistive strain gauge varies due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected when the resistance is outside a normal resistance range (as disclosed in 0041-0045).
Regarding claim 14, Kawamura et al. teaches a method comprising: measuring an electrical property (resistance) of a first sensor (7), wherein the first sensor (7) is mechanically coupled to a first point and a second point (indicated with dotted lines 23 in fig. 1) on a surface (6) (as shown in fig. 1-3 and disclosed in para. 0035), wherein the first point and the second point are located across an opening of a groove (23 to 26) on the surface (6) (as shown in fig. 1 and disclosed in para. 0034); comparing (using U1) the electrical property (resistance) of the first sensor (7) with a first threshold (V1) and with a second threshold (V3) (as shown in fig. 4 and disclosed in 0041-0045); and determining a first deformation of the surface when the electrical property of the first sensor (7) is higher than the first threshold (V1) or lower than the second threshold (V2) (as shown in fig. 4 and disclosed in 0041-0045).
Regarding claim 18, Kawamura et al. teaches a sensing device (1) comprising: a first sensor (7) configured to mechanically couple to a first point and a second point (indicated with dotted lines 23 in fig. 1) on a surface (6) (as shown in fig. 1 and disclosed in para, 0034), wherein the first point and the second point are located across an opening of a groove (23 to 26) on the surface (6), wherein an electrical property (resistance) of the first sensor (7) is configured to change in response to a variation in the distance between the first point and the second point (as disclosed in 0041-0045); and a detection circuitry (U1, U2 and external circuit, as disclosed in para. 0039) configured to: detect the change in the electrical property of the first sensor (7) (as disclosed in 0041-0045); and generate an output (OUT 1) indicating a presence of a first deformation using the detection of the change in the electrical property of the first sensor (7) (as disclosed in 0041-0045).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US Pat. 2015/0135857) in view of Hart (US PGPUB 2020/0249128).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura et al. teaches a second sensor (8) coupled to a third point and a fourth point (indicated with dotted lines 24 in fig. 1) on the surface (6) and across the opening (as shown in fig. 1), wherein a distance between the third point and the fourth point is configured to vary in response to a second deformation (as disclosed in 0041-0045), and an electrical property (electrical resistance) of the second sensor (8) is configured to change in response to the variation in the distance between the third point and the fourth point (as disclosed in 0041-0045), wherein the detection circuitry (U1, U2 and external circuit, as disclosed in para. 0039) is configured to: detect the change in the electrical property of the second sensor (8) (as shown in fig. 4 and disclosed in 0041-0045); and generate an output indicating (OUT1) a presence of the second deformation using the detection of the change in the electrical property of the second sensor (8) (as disclosed in 0041-0045).
Kawamura et al. fails to specifically teach a communications circuitry configured to generate an alarm using any of the output indicating the presence of the first deformation and the output indicating the presence of the second deformations. However, Hart teaches a communications circuitry configured to generate an alarm using any of the output indicating the presence of the first deformation and the output indicating the presence of the second deformations (as disclosed in para. 0062).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a communications circuitry configured to generate an alarm using any of the output indicating the presence of the first deformation and the output indicating the presence of the second deformations as taught by Hart with the invention of Kawamura et al. in order to avoid further damage to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kawamura et al. and Hart teaches the limitations of claim 2, in addition, Kawamura et al. teaches wherein a line (15) connecting the first point and the second point is distinct from and is approximately parallel to a line (13) connecting the third point and the fourth point (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kawamura et al. and Hart teaches the limitations of claim 2, in addition, Kawamura et al. teaches wherein a line (14) connecting the first point and the second point is distinct from and intersects a line (other line connecting sensor 8 to line 14) connecting the third point and the fourth point (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Kawamura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 14, in addition, Kawamura et al. teaches measuring an electrical property (resistance) of a second sensor (8), wherein the second sensor (8) is mechanically coupled to a third point and a fourth point (indicated with dotted lines 24 in fig. 1) on the surface (6), wherein the third point and the fourth point are located across the opening of the groove on the surface (as shown in fig. 1); comparing (using U1) the electrical property of the second sensor (8) with a third threshold (V1) and with a fourth threshold (V3); determining a second deformation of the surface (6) when the electrical property of the second sensor (8) is higher than the third threshold or lower than the second threshold (as shown in fig. 4 and disclosed in 0041-0045).
Kawamura et al. fails to specifically teach generating an alarm in response to determining any of the first deformation and the second deformations. However, Hart teaches generating an alarm in response to determining any of the first deformation and the second deformations (as disclosed in para. 0062).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have generating an alarm in response to determining any of the first deformation and the second deformations as taught by Hart with the invention of Kawamura et al. in order to avoid further damage to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kawamura et al. and Hart teaches the limitations of claim 15, in addition, Kawamura et al. teaches wherein a line (15) connecting the first point and the second point is distinct from and is approximately parallel to a line (13) connecting the third point and the fourth point (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kawamura et al. and Hart teaches the limitations of claim 16, in addition, Kawamura et al. teaches wherein a line (14) connecting the first point and the second point is distinct from and intersects a line (other line connecting sensor 8 to line 14) connecting the third point and the fourth point (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Kawamura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 18, in addition, Kawamura et al. teaches a second sensor (8) configured to mechanically couple to a third point and a fourth point (indicated with dotted lines 24 in fig. 1) on a surface (6), wherein the third point and the fourth point are located across the opening of the groove (23 to 26) on the surface (6) (as shown in fig. 1), wherein an electrical property (resistance) of the second sensor (8) is configured to change in response to a variation in the distance between the third point and the fourth point (as disclosed in 0041-0045); wherein the detection circuitry (U1, U2 and external circuit, as disclosed in para. 0039) is configured to: detect the change in the electrical property of the second sensor (8) (as shown in fig. 4 and disclosed in 0041-0045); and generate an output (OUT 1) indicating a presence of a second deformation using the detection of the change in the electrical property of the second sensor (8) (as shown in fig. 4 and disclosed in 0041-0045).
Kawamura et al. fails to specifically teach a communications circuitry configured to generate an alarm using any of the output indicating the presence of the first deformation and the output indicating the presence of the second deformations. However, Hart teaches a communications circuitry configured to generate an alarm using any of the output indicating the presence of the first deformation and the output indicating the presence of the second deformations (as disclosed in para. 0062).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a communications circuitry configured to generate an alarm using any of the output indicating the presence of the first deformation and the output indicating the presence of the second deformations as taught by Hart with the invention of Kawamura et al. in order to avoid further damage to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kawamura et al. and Hart teaches the limitations of claim 19, in addition, Kawamura et al. teaches wherein a line (15) connecting the first point and the second point is distinct from a line (14) connecting the third point and the fourth point (as shown in fig. 1).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US Pat. 2015/0135857) in view of Pokora et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0032112).
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Kawamura et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the surface is on a bottom cover of an electric vehicle facing a battery of the electric vehicle. However, Pokora et al. teaches wherein the surface (106) is on a bottom cover of an electric vehicle facing a battery of the electric vehicle (as shown in fig. 1 and 5, and disclosed in para. 0028 and 0039).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the surface on a bottom cover of an electric vehicle facing a battery of the electric vehicle as taught by Pokora et al. with the invention of Kawamura et al. in order to accurately and effectively determine impacts from debris.
Regarding claim 11, Kawamura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Kawamura et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the sensor comprises a breakable conductive element, wherein the breakable conductive element generates an open circuit between the first point and the second point due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected using the open circuit. However, Pokora et al. teaches wherein the sensor (222) comprises a breakable conductive element, wherein the breakable conductive element generates an open circuit between the first point and the second point due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected using the open circuit (as shown in fig. 5 and 7, and disclosed in para. 0041).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the sensor comprise a breakable conductive element, wherein the breakable conductive element generates an open circuit between the first point and the second point due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected using the open circuit as taught by Pokora et al. with the invention of Kawamura et al. in order to accurately locate and determine impacts from debris.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US Pat. 2015/0135857) and Pokora et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0032112) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US Pat. 10,474,769).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kawamura et al. and Pokora et al. teaches the limitations of claim 5.
The combination of Kawamura et al. and Pokora et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the battery comprises a battery cell structure, wherein the battery cell structure and the bottom cover form a chassis of the electric vehicle. However, Liu et al. teaches wherein the battery comprises a battery cell structure (100), wherein the battery cell structure and the bottom cover form a chassis (710) of the electric vehicle (705) (as shown in fig. 7).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the battery comprise a battery cell structure, wherein the battery cell structure and the bottom cover form a chassis of the electric vehicle as taught by Liu et al. with the invention of the combination of Kawamura et al. and Pokora et al. in order to securely ground the battery and the corresponding circuitry.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US Pat. 2015/0135857) in view of HE et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0109010).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Kawamura et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the sensor comprises a capacitive strain gauge wherein a capacitance of the capacitive strain gauge varies due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected when the capacitance is outside a normal capacitance range. However, HE et al. teaches wherein the sensor (103) comprises a capacitive strain gauge wherein a capacitance of the capacitive strain gauge varies due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected when the capacitance is outside a normal capacitance range (as disclosed in para. 0056).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the sensor comprise a capacitive strain gauge wherein a capacitance of the capacitive strain gauge varies due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected when the capacitance is outside a normal capacitance range as taught by HE with the invention of Kawamura et al. in order to use a device with high sensitivity and accuracy.
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Kawamura et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the sensor comprises an inductive strain gauge wherein an inductance of the inductive strain gauge varies due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected when the inductance is outside a normal inductance range. However, HE et al. teaches wherein the sensor (103) comprises an inductive strain gauge wherein an inductance of the inductive strain gauge varies due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected when the inductance is outside a normal inductance range (as disclosed in para. 0056).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the sensor comprise an inductive strain gauge wherein an inductance of the inductive strain gauge varies due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected when the inductance is outside a normal inductance range as taught by HE with the invention of Kawamura et al. in order to use a device with high durability.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US Pat. 2015/0135857) in view of Roylance (US Pat. 5,574,447).
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Kawamura et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the sensor comprises a piezoelectric material, wherein the piezoelectric material generates a voltage due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected when the voltage is outside a normal voltage range. However, Roylance teaches wherein the sensor comprises a piezoelectric material, wherein the piezoelectric material generates a voltage due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected when the voltage is outside a normal voltage range. (as disclosed in col. 6, lines 53-63).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the sensor comprise a piezoelectric material, wherein the piezoelectric material generates a voltage due to the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point and wherein the first deformation is detected when the voltage is outside a normal voltage range as taught by Roylance with the invention of Kawamura et al. in order to use a device with high rigidity and sensitivity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US Pat. 2015/0135857) and Pokora et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0032112) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Keller et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0372562).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kawamura et al. and Pokora et al. teaches the limitations of claim 11.
The combination of Kawamura et al. and Pokora et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the sensor comprises a flexible substrate wherein a length of the flexible substrate is configured to change because of the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point, wherein the breakable conductive element is mechanically coupled to the flexible substrate. However, Keller et al. teaches wherein the sensor (100) comprises a flexible substrate (130) wherein a length of the flexible substrate is configured to change because of the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point, wherein the breakable conductive element is mechanically coupled to the flexible substrate (as shown in fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the sensor comprise a flexible substrate wherein a length of the flexible substrate is configured to change because of the variation in the distance between the first point and the second point, wherein the breakable conductive element is mechanically coupled to the flexible substrate as taught by Keller et al. with the invention of the combination of Kawamura et al. and Pokora et al. in order to use a device that has enhance reliability and durability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US Pat. 2015/0135857) and Pokora et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0032112) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of KR 101239220 B1.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kawamura et al. and Pokora et al. teaches the limitations of claim 11.
The combination of Kawamura et al. and Pokora et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the breakable conductive element comprises nanocrystal metal. However, KR 101239220 B1 teaches wherein the breakable conductive element comprises nanocrystal metal (see translated document).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the breakable conductive element comprises nanocrystal metal as taught by KR 101239220 B1 with the invention of the combination of Kawamura et al. and Pokora et al. in order to use a material with superior mechanical strength and durability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858