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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kokuba et al. JP 2018-146428 A (hereafter Kokuba), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 11 March 2024.
As to claim 1: Kokuba discloses a load sensor (10; see fig. 1 and ¶ 55 of the included English translation of Kokuba relied upon for the purposes of the instant rejection) comprising:
a base member (12; see fig. 1 and ¶ 55) having a flat shape (see fig. 1);
a plurality of electrically-conductive elastic bodies (14; see fig. 1 and ¶ 57) disposed so as to extend in a first direction on an upper face of the base member (see fig. 1);
at least one electrically-conductive member (16; see fig. 1) extending in a second direction and crossing the plurality of electrically-conductive elastic bodies (see fig. 1 and ¶ 58);
a dielectric body (28; see ¶ 60) disposed between the plurality of electrically-conductive elastic bodies and the electrically conductive member (see ¶ 60); and
a plurality of wires (24; see ¶ 60) respectively connected to the plurality of electrically-conductive elastic bodies and disposed so as to extend in the second direction on the upper face of the base member (see fig. 1), wherein
each wire
is disposed at a position where the wire does not overlap (see fig. 1) with the electrically-conductive member (16), and
is insulated (see ¶ 60) at least in a range where the wire overlaps with the electrically-conductive elastic body (14) other than the electrically-conductive elastic body serving as a connection target (see ¶ 86 and 87).
As to claim 4: Kokuba discloses the load sensor according to claim 1, wherein in a range between the wires (24) adjacent to each other (see fig. 1), the electrically-conductive member (16) is disposed (see figs. 1 and 3).
As to claim 6: Kokuba discloses the load sensor according to claim 1, wherein the dielectric body (28) is set so as to cover a surface of the electrically-conductive member (16) (see fig. 3).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokuba et al. JP 2018-146428 A (hereafter Kokuba), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 11 March 2024 in view of Maeda et al. US PG-PUB 2014/0326079 A1 (hereafter Maeda).
As to claim 5: Kokuba teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including electrically-conductive bodies (14; see fig. 1 and ¶ 57), wires (24; see ¶ 60), and a base member (12; see fig. 1 and ¶ 55), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein each electrically-conductive elastic body and each wire are formed on the upper face of the base member by printing.
However, Maeda teaches that electrically-conductive elastic bodies and wires may be formed in sensors by printing (see ¶ 79).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kokuba’s electrically-conductive elastic body and each wire to be formed on the upper face of the base member by printing because printing of electrodes and wirings is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of producing said electrodes and wirings even when the structures being formed are thin or cover a large area, such as suggested in ¶ 79 of Maeda.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokuba et al. JP 2018-146428 A (hereafter Kokuba), prior art of record as indicated on the IDS filed 11 March 2024 in view of Ogawa et al. WO 2005-054802 A1 (hereafter Ogawa), prior art of record as being the WO equivalent of JP 2005-164448 A indicated on the IDS filed 11 March 2024.
As to claim 7: Kokuba teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
another base member disposed so as to oppose the upper face of the base member;
a plurality of other electrically-conductive elastic bodies disposed on a lower face of the other base member so as to respectively oppose the plurality of electrically-conductive elastic bodies; and
a dielectric body disposed between the plurality of other electrically-conductive elastic bodies and the electrically-conductive member.
However, Ogawa teaches:
another base member (1; see fig. 1 and ¶ 14);
a plurality of electrically-conductive elastic bodies (2; see ¶ 14) disposed on a lower face of the base member (see fig. 1); and
a dielectric body (4; see ¶ 14) disposed between the plurality of electrically-conductive elastic bodies (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kokuba’s sensor by including another base member disposed so as to oppose the upper face of the base member; a plurality of other electrically-conductive elastic bodies disposed on a lower face of the other base member so as to respectively oppose the plurality of electrically-conductive elastic bodies; and a dielectric body disposed between the plurality of other electrically-conductive elastic bodies and the electrically-conductive member because a stacked configuration minimizes total encompassed volume of such a sensing device while still allowing for the device to function with excellent linearity and restorability during detection of external pressure, such as suggested in ¶ 15 and 16 of Ogawa.
As to claim 8: Kokuba as modified by Ogawa teaches the load sensor according to claim 7, comprising a connection structure configured to electrically connect the electrically-conductive elastic bodies (14 of Kokuba) and the other electrically-conductive elastic bodies (2 of Ogawa) opposing each other (see ¶ 17 of Ogawa; in the combination of Kokuba and Ogawa, the disclosed serial connections of the sensor unit are considered to be those structures that are considered to be “connection structures”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a load sensor wherein a plurality of electric conductors have a resistance lower than that of the electrically-conductive elastic bodies (emphasis added) are disposed on the upper face of the base member, when considered in combination with the other limitations recited in the instant claim and with those of parent claim 1.
In particular, while Inada et al. JP 2012-251896 A (hereafter Inada), prior art of record as noted on the IDS filed 11 March 2024, is considered to disclose electrical conductors with a certain resistance (see ¶ 36 of the included English translation of Inada), there does not appear to be a disclosure or suggestion in the cited prior art of record that would render obvious the plurality of electric conductors having a resistance that is lower than that of the electrically-conductive elastic bodies of Kokuba.
As to claim 3: The claim depends directly from claim 2 and accordingly is also indicated allowable over the cited prior art of record at least by virtue of is dependency upon an objected to claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights