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 § 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 13, 16, and 19 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.
As to claim 13: The claim recites in part that “the second part is all a rest of the first part during the first period” but is unclear from the instant claim or parent claims 1 and 11 what is meant by the second part recited in claim 11 being “all a rest of the first part”. In particular, as recited in parent claim 11, the claimed “second part” appears to refer to a part of the first period in which force acting on the first circuit formation layer is detected in a first period such as the first sensing period depicted in fig. 8. The examiner notes that this first sensing period spans from T1 to T3 and accordingly a “second part” may refer to the region spanning T2 to T3 in fig. 8, but it is still unclear regarding the scope of what constitutes “all a rest of the first part” and there does not appear to be any portion of Applicant’s as-filed specification that pertains to such a limitation outside of the depiction in fig. 8 and accordingly the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained at this time.
As to claims 16 and 19: Each of said claims recite limitations similar to claim 13 and accordingly each suffers from issues similar to those indicated regarding claim 13 as described previously above but not repeated herein for brevity.
Because the scope of each of claims 13, 16, and 19 cannot be reasonably determined for the above noted reasons, a proper and complete prior art for the claimed subject matter of each could not be completed at this time.
The examiner recommends either responding to this office action by explaining remarks how Applicant believes the claim scopes to be clear, preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claims so as to obviate the issues presented previously above.
Should Applicant’s reply overcome the instant rejections of each of claims 13, 16, and 19, a prior art search of the claimed subject matter of each would be carried out at that time and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of each of said claims would be withdrawn.
References Cited but not Relied Upon
Inada et al. US PG-PUB 2013/0082763 A1 discloses a capacitive sensor that calculates magnitude of external force applied to a position of a pair of electrodes based on a plurality of measured values and appears pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Jung et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0215628 A1 discloses a multilayer electronic component including electrodes disposed alternately with dielectric layer opposing each other and appears pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 1: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a force detection device comprising a force sensor to which a load is applied which includes first detection electrodes and second detection electrodes that are shifted in a first direction and a second direction when viewed in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction, composite individual detection regions are provided above the base, each of the composite individual detection regions is a region where a part of a corresponding one of the first individual detection regions overlaps a part of a corresponding one of the second individual detection regions in a plan view, and the load is calculated for each of the composite individual detection regions, when considered in combination with the other limitations recited in the instant claim.
The closest available prior art appears to be Mitchell-Williams et al. GB 2628982 A (hereafter Mitchell). Mitchell is considered to disclose a force sensor (see fig. 1 and ¶ 30 of the included copy of Mitchell as indicated on form PTO-892 regarding references cited in foreign patent documents) to which a load is applied (see ¶ 32), wherein the force sensor includes a base (see fig. 2 regarding the surface upon which the electrodes are disposed), a first circuit formation layer (the layer 150 associated with first electrodes 100; see ¶ 42), a second circuit formation layer (the layer 250 associated with second electrodes 200; see ¶ 42) stacked in order (see ¶43), the first circuit formation layer includes a first surface (see fig. 2), a plurality of first detection electrodes (100) disposed on the first surface (see fig. 2), and a plurality of first individual detection regions divided corresponding to the first detection electrodes (see fig. 1 regarding regions corresponding to where forces 114a and 114b are applied such as disclosed in ¶ 27), the second circuit formation layer includes a second surface (see fig. 2), a plurality of second detection electrodes (the electrodes in electrode layer 200 such as disclosed in ¶ 35), and a plurality of second individual detection regions divided corresponding to the second detection electrodes (not explicitly depicted but regions of the electrodes 200 corresponding to force regions 114a and 114b such as depicted in fig. 1 may be considered to be second individual detection regions correspond got the second detection electrodes), the first detection electrodes are arrayed in a first direction parallel to the detection surface and a second direction parallel to the detection surface and intersecting the first direction (see fig. 2), the second detection electrodes are arrayed in the first direction and the second direction (see fig. 2), composite individual detection regions (408) are provided above the base (see fig. 4 and ¶ 42).
However, it appears that the load calculations in Mitchell are not calculated for each of the composite individual detection regions such as claimed in claim 1 and instead are calculated using an overall interpolation such as disclosed in ¶ 34 in order to determine a press location and thus appears to be fundamentally different from Applicant’s claimed invention which calculates force values in composite individual detection regions by adding up force values respectively in a first individual detection region and a second individual region overlapping the composite individual detection region such as outlined in Applicant’s as-filed specification page 23, first paragraph. Accordingly, there does not appear to be any disclosure or obvious modification of Mitchell that would result in arriving at Applicant’s invention as claimed in claim 1 and accordingly the instant claim is indicated allowable over the cited prior art of record.
As to claims 2-12, 14, 15, 17, and 18: Each of said claims depends ultimately from claim 1 and accordingly each is indicated allowable over the cited prior art of record at least by virtue of their respective dependencies upon an allowable independent claim.
Claims 13, 16, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 13, 16, and 19: Each of said claims depend ultimately from claim 1 and accordingly would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, at least by virtue of their respective dependencies upon an allowable independent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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