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 Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 8, “movement the magnetic bump” should be changed to --movement of the magnetic bump--.
Regarding claim 12, line 1, “at least one of” should be changed to --at least one--.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Regarding claim 22, the claim tries to further limit the pressure sensor of claim 21 by claiming that the workpiece comprises a magnetic property. The workpiece itself is not part of the apparatus from claim 21. The existence of the workpiece limitations in the pressure sensor from claim 21 imply structural capabilities of the claimed structure. By further limiting the workpiece in claim 22, it appears as though the claim is attempting to claim both the apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus (providing a workpiece with a magnetic property). A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
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 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 1-3, 5-6, 9-13, 15-16, 19-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahaggach et al. (WO 2024/254716 A1) (hereinafter Ahaggach) in view of Lu et al. (US 2024/0210260 A1) (hereinafter Lu).
Regarding claim 1, Ahaggach teaches a two-dimensional (2D) pressure sensor [tactile sensor device] (see Abstract), comprising: a substrate [base structure 2]; a pressure deformation layer on the substrate and configured to deform due to external pressure applied by a workpiece [elastomeric compression body 6]; a magnetic bump on the pressure deformation layer and configured to move due to the external pressure applied by the workpiece [magnetized elastomeric body 4]; and a proximity sensor in the pressure deformation layer and configured to detect at least one of movement of the workpiece and movement of the magnetic bump [magnetic sensor element 3] (Pgs. 9-12, see Figs. 1a-1c).
Ahaggach fails to teach an additional tactile sensor in the pressure deformation layer and configured to detect deformation of the pressure deformation layer. Lu teaches a force sensor which combines both a magnetic sensor [6] configured to detect movement of a magnet [5] and a tactile sensor [3] configured to detect deformation of a deformation layer [2a] (Para [0064], see Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ahaggach with Lu such to further comprise an additional tactile sensor in the pressure deformation layer and configured to detect deformation of the pressure deformation layer, in order to more accurately detect forces acting on the sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the proximity sensor comprises a high-frequency oscillator circuit configured to detect a change in inductance of an inductive coil caused by a change in magnetic field due to movement of the magnetic bump [planar inductor coil] (see Ahaggach Claim 7).
Regarding claim 3, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the proximity sensor comprises a Hall element configured to measure a change in a Hall voltage caused by a change in magnetic field due to movement of the magnetic bump [Hall-sensor] (see Ahaggach Claim 7).
Regarding claim 5, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the tactile sensor comprises a piezo-resistive pressure sensor configured to detect a change in resistance of a piezoresistor caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer. Lu additionally teaches wherein the tactile sensor comprise a piezo-resistive pressure sensor 3 configured to detect a change in resistance of a piezoresistor caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer 2a (Lu Para [0064]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Ahaggach in view of Lu such that the tactile sensor comprises a piezo-resistive pressure sensor configured to detect a change in resistance of a piezoresistor caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer, in order to more accurately detect forces acting on the sensor.
Regarding claim 6, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the tactile sensor an electrostatic capacitance-type pressure sensor configured to detect a change in electrostatic capacitance between electrodes, wherein the change in electrostatic capacitance is caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer. Lu additionally teaches wherein the tactile sensor can also be a capacitive-based sensor based on change in electrostatic capacitance caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer 2a (Lu Para [0016, 0064, 0074]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Ahaggach in view of Lu such that the tactile sensor an electrostatic capacitance-type pressure sensor configured to detect a change in electrostatic capacitance between electrodes, wherein the change in electrostatic capacitance is caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer, in order to more accurately detect forces acting on the sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the pressure deformation layer comprises a polymer material [elastomeric compression body 6] (Ahaggach Pg. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising a controller configured to obtain information about pressure applied by the workpiece, based on a signal output from the proximity sensor and a signal output from the tactile sensor. Lu additionally teaches a controller configured to obtain information about the force applied based on signal outputs from the piezoresistive tactile sensing and the magnetic proximity sensing (Lu Para [0063]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Ahaggach in view of Lu such to further comprise a controller configured to obtain information about pressure applied by the workpiece, based on a signal output from the proximity sensor and a signal output from the tactile sensor, in order to more accurately detect forces acting on the sensor.
Regarding claim 11, Ahaggach teaches a two-dimensional (2D) pressure sensor [tactile sensor device] (see Abstract), comprising: a substrate [base structure 2]; a pressure deformation layer on the substrate and configured to deform due to external pressure applied by a workpiece [elastomeric compression body 6]; a magnetic bump on the pressure deformation layer and configured to move due to the external pressure applied by the workpiece [magnetized elastomeric body 4]; and a proximity sensor in the pressure deformation layer and configured to detect at least one of movement of the workpiece and movement of the magnetic bump [magnetic sensor element 3] (Pgs. 9-12, see Figs. 1a-1c).
Ahaggach fails to teach an additional tactile sensor in the pressure deformation layer and configured to detect deformation of the pressure deformation layer, and wherein the sensor is a sensor array having a plurality of magnetic bumps, a plurality of proximity sensors, and a plurality of tactile sensors. Lu teaches a force sensor array (see Figs. 10-11) which combines both magnetic sensors [6] configured to detect movement of magnets [5] and tactile sensors [3] configured to detect deformation of a deformation layer [2a] (Para [0064], see Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ahaggach with Lu such that the pressure sensor is a pressure sensor array having a plurality of magnetic bumps, a plurality of proximity sensors, and to further comprise additional tactile sensors in the pressure deformation layer and configured to detect deformation of the pressure deformation layer, in order to more accurately detect forces acting on the sensors over a wide area.
Regarding claim 12, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 11 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein at least one proximity sensor of the plurality of proximity sensors comprises a high-frequency oscillator circuit configured to detect a change in inductance of an inductive coil caused by a change in magnetic field due to movement of the magnetic bump [planar inductor coil] (see Ahaggach Claim 7).
Regarding claim 13, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 11 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein at least one proximity sensor of the plurality of the proximity sensors comprises a Hall element configured to measure a change in a Hall voltage caused by a change in magnetic field due to movement of the magnetic bump [Hall-sensor] (see Ahaggach Claim 7).
Regarding claim 15, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 11 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein at least one tactile sensor of the plurality of tactile sensors comprises a piezo-resistive pressure sensor configured to detect a change in resistance of a piezoresistor caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer. Lu additionally teaches wherein the tactile sensor comprise a piezo-resistive pressure sensor 3 configured to detect a change in resistance of a piezoresistor caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer 2a (Lu Para [0064]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Ahaggach in view of Lu such that the tactile sensor comprises a piezo-resistive pressure sensor configured to detect a change in resistance of a piezoresistor caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer, in order to more accurately detect forces acting on the sensor.
Regarding claim 16, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 11 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein at least one tactile sensor of the plurality of tactile sensors comprises an electrostatic capacitance-type pressure sensor configured to detect a change in electrostatic capacitance between electrodes, wherein the change in electrostatic capacitance is caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer. Lu additionally teaches wherein the tactile sensor can also be a capacitive-based sensor based on change in electrostatic capacitance caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer 2a (Lu Para [0016, 0064, 0074]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Ahaggach in view of Lu such that the tactile sensor an electrostatic capacitance-type pressure sensor configured to detect a change in electrostatic capacitance between electrodes, wherein the change in electrostatic capacitance is caused by pressure due to deformation of the pressure deformation layer, in order to more accurately detect forces acting on the sensor.
Regarding claim 19, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 11 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the pressure deformation layer comprises a polymer material [elastomeric compression body 6] (Ahaggach Pg. 9).
Regarding claim 20, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 11 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising a controller configured to obtain information about pressure applied by the workpiece, based on a signal output from the plurality of proximity sensors and a signal output from the plurality of tactile sensors; and estimate a direction and distribution of force, a surface deformation state, and an alignment state based on the obtained information about the pressured applied by the workpiece. Lu additionally teaches a controller configured to obtain information about the force applied based on signal outputs from the piezoresistive tactile sensing and the magnetic proximity sensing (Lu Para [0063-0064]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Ahaggach in view of Lu such to further comprise a controller configured to obtain information about pressure applied by the workpiece, based on a signal output from the proximity sensor and a signal output from the tactile sensor and estimate a direction and distribution of force, a surface deformation state, and an alignment state based on the obtained information about the pressured applied by the workpiece, in order to more accurately detect forces acting on the sensor.
Regarding claim 21, Ahaggach teaches a two-dimensional (2D) pressure sensor [tactile sensor device] (see Abstract), comprising: a substrate [base structure 2]; a pressure deformation layer on the substrate and configured to deform based on pressure applied by a workpiece [elastomeric compression body 6]; a magnetic bump on the pressure deformation layer and configured to move based on proximity with the workpiece [magnetized elastomeric body 4 capable of moving in proximity to a magnetic object]; and a proximity sensor in the pressure deformation layer and configured to detect at least one of movement of the workpiece and movement of the magnetic bump [magnetic sensor element 3] (Pgs. 9-12, see Figs. 1a-1c).
Ahaggach fails to teach an additional tactile sensor in the pressure deformation layer and configured to detect deformation of the pressure deformation layer. Lu teaches a force sensor which combines both a magnetic sensor [6] configured to detect movement of a magnet [5] and a tactile sensor [3] configured to detect deformation of a deformation layer [2a] (Para [0064], see Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ahaggach with Lu such to further comprise an additional tactile sensor in the pressure deformation layer and configured to detect deformation of the pressure deformation layer, in order to more accurately detect forces acting on the sensor.
As best understood regarding claim 22, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 21 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the magnetic bump is configured to move based on an interaction with a magnetic property of the workpiece without contacting the workpiece [magnetized elastomeric body 4 capable of moving in proximity to a magnetic object] (Ahaggach Pgs. 9-12, see Figs. 1a-1c).
Regarding claim 23, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 21 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the magnetic bump is configured to move based on the workpiece contacting the magnetic bump [force f from contacting an object] (Ahaggach Pgs. 9-12, see Figs. 1a-1c).
Regarding claim 25, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claim 21 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising a controller configured to obtain information about pressure applied by the workpiece, based on a signal output from the proximity sensor and a signal output from the tactile sensor. Lu additionally teaches a controller configured to obtain information about the force applied based on signal outputs from the piezoresistive tactile sensing and the magnetic proximity sensing (Lu Para [0063]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Ahaggach in view of Lu such to further comprise a controller configured to obtain information about pressure applied by the workpiece, based on a signal output from the proximity sensor and a signal output from the tactile sensor, in order to more accurately detect forces acting on the sensor.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahaggach in view of Lu, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Negishi (US 2020/0173869 A1) (hereinafter Negishi).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the proximity sensor comprises a magnetoresistor configured to detect a change in resistance caused by a change in magnetic field due to movement of the magnetic bump. Negishi teaches a force sensor wherein a magnetoresistor is utilized as a proximity sensor for detecting position of a magnet (Para [0201]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Ahaggach in view of Lu with Negishi such that the proximity sensor comprises a magnetoresistor configured to detect a change in resistance caused by a change in magnetic field due to movement of the magnetic bump, for the predictable result of sensing movement of the magnetic bump.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahaggach in view of Lu, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Deng et al. (US 2025/0076129 A1) (hereinafter Deng).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Ahaggach in view of Lu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising partition walls, wherein the tactile sensor is between the partition walls, and wherein the partition walls comprise a material that is more robust than a material of the deformation layer. Deng teaches a pressure sensor having rigid partition walls which surrounds a tactile sensing portion (see Abstract, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Ahaggach in view of Lu with Deng such to further comprise partition walls, wherein the tactile sensor is between the partition walls, and wherein the partition walls comprise a material that is more robust than a material of the deformation layer, in order to provide separately located sensing spaces on the tactile sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 18, and 24 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:
Regarding claims 8, 18, and 24, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding wherein the magnetic bump comprises an embedded portion that is embedded in the pressure deformation layer and a protruding portion that protrudes from the pressure deformation layer, wherein the protective layer at least partially covers the protruding portion of the magnetic bump, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in the claims they depend upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights