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 § 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, 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (JP 2002048607 A), hereinafter referred to as Niwa, in view of Niwa (JP 2019192740 A), hereinafter referred to as Niwa ‘740’, and in further view of Owaki et al. (JPH 03133101 A), hereinafter referred to as Owaki.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Niwa teaches, a thin-film tactile sensor capable of simultaneously detecting temperature and pressure, wherein a Cr-N alloy thin film having high strain sensitivity and low temperature sensitivity is used as a strain sensor, and an Fe-Pd alloy thin film having high temperature sensitivity and low strain sensitivity is used as a temperature sensor (see Fig. 1 and para. [0019, 0020, 0031, 0035, 0036]). Niwa does not necessarily teach, “A temperature-sensitive and strain-sensitive composite sensor comprising: a strain-sensitive resistive film represented by a formula of Cr(100-x-y)AlxNy, 5 < x ≤ 50 and 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 20 being satisfied; wherein composition regions of x and y of the strain-sensitive resistive film are 25 < x ≤ 50 and 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 20, respectively; and a temperature-sensitive resistive film having an absolute value of temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR) of 2000 ppm/oC or more in a temperature range of -50oC or more and 450oC or less.” However, Niwa ‘740’ describes using a Cr-N-Al thin film satisfying the condition, “Cr(100-x-y)AlxNy, 5 < x ≤ 50 and 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 20” as a strain resistance film having high gauge factor even in a high temperature range and exhibiting an excellent TCS characteristic (see para. [0018–0023, 0046, 0063–0070]). Furthermore, Owaki teaches, “a temperature-sensitive resistive film having an absolute value of temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR) of 2000 ppm/oC or more in a temperature range of -50oC or more and 450oC or less (see discussion on page 6).” It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niwa’s invention to include “a strain-sensitive resistive film represented by a formula of Cr(100-x-y)AlxNy, 5 < x ≤ 50 and 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 20 being satisfied; wherein composition regions of x and y of the strain-sensitive resistive film are 25 < x ≤ 50 and 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 20, respectively”, as taught by Niwa ‘740’ and “a temperature-sensitive resistive film having an absolute value of temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR) of 2000 ppm/oC or more in a temperature range of -50oC or more and 450oC or less”, as taught by Owaki.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Niwa’s invention for at least the purpose of providing excellent sensor stability over a large temperature range while also providing excellent strain sensitivity (see the teachings of Niwa ‘740’, abstract, para. [0001, 0002, 0031–0070] and Owaki, page 6).
Regarding claim 3, Niwa teaches, “wherein TCRt≥ (2.5 x kt x εt) is satisfied, where TCRt is a temperature coefficient of resistance of the temperature-sensitive resistive film, kt is a gauge factor of the temperature-sensitive resistive film, and εt is a maximum amount of strain applied to an installation location of the temperature-sensitive resistive film (see para. [0035, 0036]; discussion here describes providing a temperature sensor having a gauge factor of ~2 and TCR greater than 4000, such that a strain of ~500µε applied thereto).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 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 2, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein the temperature-sensitive resistive film has an absolute value of temperature coefficient of sensitivity (TCS) of 500 ppm/oC or less in the temperature range of -50oC or more and 450oC or less.”
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein the strain-sensitive resistive film has a gauge factor kd of 4 or more in the temperature range of -50oC or more and 450oC or less, and TCRt≥ (10 x kt x εt) is satisfied, where TCRt is a temperature coefficient of resistance of the temperature-sensitive resistive film, kt is a gauge factor of the temperature-sensitive resistive film, and εt is a maximum amount of strain applied to an installation location of the temperature-sensitive resistive film.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach temperature/strain sensitive sensors comprising films configured similarly to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights