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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 July 2026.
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 11 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 11, it is unclear as to how the strain sensor which has been previously defined can include several sensors and whether the sensors are additional versions of the strain sensor previously disclosed or different sensors.
All claims which depend from claim 11 are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. US 2023/0207227.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches as seen in fig. 2 or 4, a strain sensor comprising a flexible substrate 20, a pair of beams (protrusions 21) disposed on the flexible substate wherein the pair of beams are electrically conductive (paragraph 0068), and a contact pad (electrodes on the outer edge surfaces 19, paragraph 0068) disposed on each beam of the pair of beams forming a switch (when force is applied as shown between fig. 2a and 2b for example).
Regarding claim 2, the contact pad on each beam of the pair of beams are in electrical contact when the flexible substrate experiences a strain beyond a threshold (the amount of strain to cause the contact as shown in fig. 2b for example, paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 3, the pair of beams of Anderson amplify the strain experienced by the substate in that they are arranged perpendicular to the substrate which would cause the ends to move greater than the substrate itself when deformed.
Regarding claim 4, the beams 21 of Anderson are located on a riser 23 which separates them from the substrate 20 as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Anderson teaches coupling the system and therefore the contact pads to a microcontroller as claimed (paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 8, the microprocessor of Anderson receives a signal indicative to the switch position in which would be an open or closed position as seen in fig. 2a and 2b. The signal would be digital in order to be processed by the microcontroller at least during one point in the processing and is therefore “received” by the microcontroller as a digital signal.
Regarding claim 11, the sensors of Anderson can be arranged in an array as seen in fig. 2 and 4 which illustrate multiple sensing elements arranged along a length.
Regarding claim 13, the switch of Anderson transitions from an open to a closed position when the strain is imparted on the flexible substrate as shown in fig. 2(a) and 2(b).
Regarding claim 14, the switch of Anderson is in the closed position when the strain exceeds a threshold as shown in fig. 2(b).
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, 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson and Ganapathi et al. US 2006/0272429.
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the contact pads as consisting of the elements claimed. Ganapathi teaches a pressure sensor which functions in the form of a switch comprising contacts 130, 132, 134, and 136 comprising gold (paragraph 0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Ganapathi with those of Anderson to add similar gold contacts to ensure contact is recorded and an accurate measurement is made.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson and O’Brien et al. US 2013/0100575.
Regarding claim 6, Anderson teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the voltage divider in electrical communication with the contact pad as claimed. O’Brien teaches a switch which uses a voltage divider in its sensing circuit (paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of O’Brien with those of Anderson in order to provide a similar voltage divider to better manage the output signal from the sensor for measurement.
Regarding claim 9, Anderson teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the receiving of a digital signal without an amplifier, an analog-to-digital converter or a filter as claimed. O’Brien teaches a switch which functions as a digital switch using Boolean circuitry within the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of O’Brien with those of Anderson in order to provide a digital switch which operates in an on/off manner independently of any external circuitry.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson and Yang et al. US 2014/0339060.
Regarding claim 10, Anderson teaches the claimed sensor but does not explicitly teach the beams as being chevron-shaped as claimed. Yang discloses a switch comprising flexible elements (bistable element 12) which can be chevron shaped (see fig. 1, paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Yang with those of Anderson to have formed the beams in a shape such as the chevron shape of Yang to allow for a wider gap between the contact points to adjust the sensitivities of the system by allowing for a greater or smaller distance between the contacts.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson.
Regarding claim 12, the incorporation of the sensor into a flexible wing is deemed an intended use of the device and therefore the flexible substrate of Anderson could be applied to any suitable use such as a wing since the flexibility and functionality of the device would be maintained. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the sensor into any flexible element such as a wing that may undergo a stress that needs to be monitored or measured.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
