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
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a process portion that prohibits … and setting” is grammatically incorrect—since the process portion ALSO performs the setting action, the Office recommends changing to “a process portion that prohibits… and sets.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2007032227 (herein Kuniyoshi).
Regarding claim 1, Kuniyoshi teaches An electric circuit body (tactile sensor module 1, an electronic circuit section 4, Fig. 10, [0053-[0055]), comprising:
a plurality of integrally aligned cells having a predetermined function (pressure detectors 3, [0054], Fig. 10);
one or more terminal portions having a plurality of terminals connected to the plurality of cells (terminal for serial communication 5, [0056], Fig. 10); and
a plurality of conductor wires that connect the plurality of terminals and the plurality of cells (wiring 60, [0056], Fig. 10),
wherein the plurality of cells are separated into a first cell group connected to one terminal portion among the one or more terminal portions and a second cell group disconnected from the one terminal portion by cutting the plurality of conductor wires at an appropriate position (A wiring 70 that electrically connects the pressure detector 3 and the electronic circuit unit 4 extends through the second strip 7 and the first strip 6, [0036]; Fig. 3 shows circuit being severed; [0059] describes H-shaped strips 9; Fig. 14 teach an H-shaped strip 9 can be cut at strip 7A).
Regarding claim 2, Kuniyoshi teaches wherein the conductor wire disconnected from the cell among the plurality of conductor wires is set to a reference potential (Fig. 3 teaches ground, which corresponds to reference potential of disconnected wires).
Regarding claim 3, Kuniyoshi teaches a reference potential-setting portion that is connected to the one terminal portion and sets the conductor wire disconnected from the cell to the reference potential (Fig. 3 teaches circuit of ground, which corresponds to reference potential of the present invention, connected to a terminal portion; Fig. 11 also teaches grounds connected to wiring of strip 6).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuniyoshi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 5424903 (herein Schreiber) and US 6880095 (herein Cromer).
Regarding claim 4, Kuniyoshi does not teach, “a connection switch portion that is connected to the one terminal portion and performs connection to one conductor wire among the plurality of conductor wires which is selected by sequential switching from the plurality of conductor wires connected to the one terminal portion.” However, Schreiber teaches it is known in the art to incorporate switches 26a-26e controlled by unit 14 for selectively sequencing power to the switches in a programmed sequence (Col. 3, Line 61-Col. 4, Line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the selective switch sequencing of Schreiber into the wiring of the tactile sensor module 1 of Kuniyoshi. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of adjusting sensor reading density ([0005], Kuniyoshi) and easily adapting the sensed shape for complex surfaces ([0006], Kuniyoshi).
Additionally regarding claim 4, Kuniyoshi and Schreiber do not teach, “a process portion that prohibits the conductor wire disconnected from the cell from being selected by the connection switch portion and setting the conductor wire prohibited from being selected by the connection switch portion to the reference potential by the reference potential-setting portion.” However, Cromer teaches it is known in the art to use connection-sensing terminal with a switch to disconnect a main voltage segment in the event of floating [i.e. disconnected] electrical terminal (Col. 4, Lines 1-4); and electrically grounding a connection-sensing terminal within the port connector connected to the device interface circuit in the event of that state (Col. 4, Lines 60-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the power switching of Cromer into the cuttable circuit of Kuniyoshi.
Regarding claim 5, Kuniyoshi teaches wherein each of the plurality of cells comprises: a first electrode and a second electrode that are arranged to be spaced from each other (see electrodes in Fig. 12 of strip 9 that connect resistor); and an elastic base material that has a dielectric property or a conductive property and is arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode (base are typically made of polyimide, [0057], which is a dielectric), the process portion detects, a connection switch portion. However, the combination of Kuniyoshi and the switching of Schreiber has already been presented as an obvious combination above in the rejection of claim 4.
Additionally regarding claim 5, Kuniyoshi does not teach, “when the capacitance is less than a predetermined threshold capacity, or the electric resistance is larger than a predetermined threshold resistance, it is determined that the conductor wire selected by the connection switch portion is abnormal, and the abnormal conductor wire may be set to the reference potential.” However, Cromer teaches it is known in the art identify an electrically floating connection, which results in zero conduction occurring, and electrically grounding a connection-sensing terminal within the port connector (see functionality of pressure sensitive resistors, [0030]).
For the above claims 4-5, one would have been motivated to combine Kuniyoshi with Schreiber for at least the purpose of adjusting sensor reading density ([0005], Kuniyoshi) and easily adapting the sensed shape for complex surfaces ([0006], Kuniyoshi). Additionally, one would have been motivated to combine Cromer with the combination of Kuniyoshi and Schreiber for at least the purpose of preventing noise and EMI on cables without shielding (Col. 2, Lines 13-27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights