DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response, filed 04/28/2026, has been entered. Claims 12-14 are added. Claims 1-14 are pending. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-14 have been fully considered but are moot due to a new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment. Any arguments which could theoretically be applied to the instant rejection are addressed herein. On page 8 of the response, applicant presents arguments regarding features which are not recited in the claims (e.g., regarding power consumption for operation). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive. Applicant’s arguments on page 9 are moot due to the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment. Applicant’s arguments on page 10, even if applied to the new grounds of rejection, would be unpersuasive. Specifically, applicant presents arguments regarding magnetization orientations of a magnetic body responding to strain and a magnetic body being unaffected by strain. In response, the examiner notes that language of the independent claims is much broader than applicant’s interpretation. Chiba, now relied upon as the primary reference for the independent claims, teaches (e.g., FIG. 1) a magnetic body whose magnetization orientation responds to strain (31) and a magnetic body whose magnetization orientation does not respond to strain (32). The language of the claims is broad enough to allow such an interpretation under BRI
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 8 (and claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-14 by dependency): Each of claims 1, 5, and 8 recite language such as “one or a plurality of magnetic bodies” but then recite “one of the magnetic bodies” and “another one of the magnetic bodies”. As such, each claim appears to contradict itself (“one or”…then reciting two). This is further compounded by the later recitation in the third from last line of claim 1 of “the magnetic body constituting the magnetic body layer. This is further compounded by dependent claims, such as but not limited to claims 2, 6, and 9 which recite “a magnetic body” and it is unclear if this is the same as one of the magnetic bodies recited in the independent claims or if it is a different magnetic body. For the purposes of examination and in light of the specification, the recitation of “a magnetic body” in claims 2, 6, and 9 is interpreted as being met by prior art which teaches a 3rd magnetic body or where it’s the same as one of the magnetic bodies recited in the independent claim (e.g., the strain-responsive magnetic body). The examiner suggest reciting each magnetic body using differing language (e.g., “first”, “second”) and also explicitly reciting that all the magnetic bodies are spaced apart from one another in a direction parallel to a top surface of the substrate (or other similar language that prevents the broader interpretation taken by the examiner).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiba et al. (US 20190360878 A1).Regarding claim 1:Chiba teaches an information processing method comprising:
providing a magnetic body layer made of one or a plurality of magnetic bodies on an elastically deformable substrate ([0025]-[0030]; FIGS. 1 and 8), a magnetization orientation of one of the magnetic bodies responding to strain (31 is a strain sensitive “magnetic body” / ferromagnetic layer), and a magnetization orientation of another one of the magnetic bodies being maintained and unaffected by strain (32 is a strain insensitive “magnetic body” / ferromagnetic layer); and detecting, by a detection device, a magnetization state including at least the magnetization orientation of the magnetic body constituting the magnetic body layer ([0036], [0038], [0041], FIGS. 2B-2D), and outputting information on the magnetization state as a result of an input of the strain to the substrate ([0041], [0074], FIG. 10)
Regarding claim 4:Chiba teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Chiba also teaches:
wherein the substrate is made of a material including synthetic resin, synthetic rubber, or natural rubber([0026], [0064], claim 11)
Regarding claim 5:Chiba teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
a magnetic element provided with a magnetic body layer made of one or a plurality of magnetic bodies on an elastically deformable substrate ([0025]-[0030]; FIGS. 1 and 8), a magnetization orientation of one of the magnetic bodies responding to strain (31 is a strain sensitive “magnetic body” / ferromagnetic layer), and a magnetization orientation of another one of the magnetic bodies being maintained and unaffected by strain (32 is a strain insensitive “magnetic body” / ferromagnetic layer); and a detection device for detecting a magnetization state including at least the magnetization orientation of the magnetic body constituting the magnetic body layer of the magnetic element ([0036], [0038], [0041], FIGS. 2B-2D), wherein information on the magnetization state detected by the detection device is output as a result of an input of the strain to the substrate ([0041], [0074], FIG. 10)
Regarding claim 7:Chiba teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.Chiba also teaches:
wherein the substrate is made of a material including synthetic resin, synthetic rubber, or natural rubber([0026], [0064], claim 11)
Regarding claim 8:Chiba teaches a magnetic element provided with
a magnetic body layer made of one or a plurality of magnetic bodies on an elastically deformable substrate ([0025]-[0030]; FIGS. 1 and 8), a magnetization orientation of one of the magnetic bodies responding to strain (31 is a strain sensitive “magnetic body” / ferromagnetic layer), and a magnetization orientation of another one of the magnetic bodies being maintained and unaffected by strain (32 is a strain insensitive “magnetic body” / ferromagnetic layer)
Regarding claim 10:Chiba teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Chiba also teaches:
wherein the substrate is made of a material including synthetic resin, synthetic rubber, or natural rubber([0026], [0064], claim 11)
Regarding claim 11:Chiba teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Chiba also teaches:
wherein the magnetic element is a stress sensor that detects the strain input from a detection target through the substrate by attaching the substrate to the detection target([0002], [0026])
Regarding claim 12:Chiba teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Chiba also teaches:
wherein the elastically deformable substrate is a non-conductive elastically deformable substrate ([0026], [0064], claim 11)
Regarding claim 13:Chiba teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.Chiba also teaches:
wherein the elastically deformable substrate is a non-conductive elastically deformable substrate ([0026], [0064], claim 11)
Regarding claim 14:Chiba teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Chiba also teaches:
wherein the elastically deformable substrate is a non-conductive elastically deformable substrate ([0026], [0064], claim 11)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba et al. (US 20190360878 A1) in view of Deak et al. (US 20080247098 A1).Regarding claim 2:Chiba teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Chiba fails to teach:
wherein the magnetic body layer includes a magnetic body in which the magnetization orientation is maintained in a direction different from a magnetization orientation before the input even after disappearance of the strain that has been input through the substrate and changes the magnetization orientationDeak teaches:
wherein the magnetic body layer includes a magnetic body in which the magnetization orientation is maintained in a direction different from a magnetization orientation before the input even after disappearance of the strain that has been input through the substrate and changes the magnetization orientation([0026]-[0027]; FIGS. 6A-6C)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a magnetic body that maintains the changed magnetization direction even after the removal of strain, as taught by Deak, in addition to the sensor of Chiba, to provide a permanent indication that a predetermined stress has occurred. This can be used to, e.g., determine potential device damage or even be used as an anti-tamper device to ensure the device of Chiba has not been tampered with or suffered stress past a specific threshold before it is used.
Regarding claim 3:Chiba and Deak teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 2 rejection above, Deak teaches:
wherein the magnetization state is detected by the detection device after the input of the strain is completed, and then the information on the magnetization state is output as the result ([0026]-[0028], [0058]-[0059])
Regarding claim 6:Chiba teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.Chiba fails to teach:
wherein the magnetic body layer includes a magnetic body in which the magnetization orientation is maintained in a direction different from a magnetization orientation before the input even after disappearance of the strain that has been input through the substrate and changes the magnetization orientationDeak teaches:
wherein the magnetic body layer includes a magnetic body in which the magnetization orientation is maintained in a direction different from a magnetization orientation before the input even after disappearance of the strain that has been input through the substrate and changes the magnetization orientation ([0026]-[0027]; FIGS. 6A-6C)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a magnetic body that maintains the changed magnetization direction even after the removal of strain, as taught by Deak, in addition to the sensor of Chiba, to provide a permanent indication that a predetermined stress has occurred. This can be used to, e.g., determine potential device damage or even be used as an anti-tamper device to ensure the device of Chiba has not been tampered with or suffered stress past a specific threshold before it is used.
Regarding claim 9:Chiba teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Chiba fails to teach:
wherein the magnetic body layer includes a magnetic body in which a magnetization orientation is maintained in a direction different from a magnetization orientation before an input even after disappearance of the strain that has been input through the substrate and changes the magnetization orientationDeak teaches:
wherein the magnetic body layer includes a magnetic body in which a magnetization orientation is maintained in a direction different from a magnetization orientation before an input even after disappearance of the strain that has been input through the substrate and changes the magnetization orientation([0026]-[0027]; FIGS. 6A-6C)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a magnetic body that maintains the changed magnetization direction even after the removal of strain, as taught by Deak, in addition to the sensor of Chiba, to provide a permanent indication that a predetermined stress has occurred. This can be used to, e.g., determine potential device damage or even be used as an anti-tamper device to ensure the device of Chiba has not been tampered with or suffered stress past a specific threshold before it is used.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights