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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the target object [claims 3 & 14] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 8-9, the limitation “the target object” should be change to --a target object-- in order to avoid an insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 11, the limitation “a target metal segment” should be change to --the target metal segment-- in order to avoid a duplicant positive recitation for this limitation in the claim. 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: there is no structural connections in the claims between a first sensing channel and a second sensing channel in both claims 1 and 7. Since claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and claims 8-12 depend from claim 7, they also are rejected for the above reason.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: there is no structural connections in the claim between the target object and a target metal segment with the rest of the limitations in the claim. Since claims 15-16 depend from claim 14, they also are rejected for the above reason.
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 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.
a)Regarding claims 1 and 7, the claims state: “A capacitor sensor comprising [including in claim 7]: a first sensing channel operating in a first operation mode to detect a first capacitance value… and a second sensing channel operating in a second operating mode to detect a second capacitance value…” It is not clear from the claim if the “capacitor sensor” operating both “operation mode” at the same time or if there is a switch like item between the sensing channels. It is not clear from the claim what item(s) is being used for the channels to receive the “capacitance value” from. It is not clear from the claim what happens to the “capacitance values” once it is detected by the sensing channels.
For examination purposes, the examiner is given the broadest reasonable interpretation as best understood. Since claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and claims 8-12 depend from claim 7, they also are rejected for the above reason.
b)Regarding claim 14, the claim states: “…obtaining a first capacitance value detected by a first sensing channel operating in a first operation mode, the first operation mode including a capacitance detection mode in response to the first capacitance value satisfying a target threshold, determining that the target object is in contact with a target metal segment; and obtaining a second capacitance value in response to the target object being in contact with a target metal segment, the second capacitance value being detected by a second sensing channel of the capacitor sensor operating in a second operation mode…” It is not clear from the claim if the “capacitor sensor” operating both “operation mode” at the same time or if there is a switch like item between the sensing channels. It is not clear from the claim if there is “a first operation mode” occurring if the “capacitance value” does not “satisfying a target threshold”. It is not clear from the claim what happens to the “capacitance values” once it is detected by the sensing channels.
For examination purposes, the examiner is given the broadest reasonable interpretation as best understood. Since claims 15-16 depend from claim 14, they also are rejected for the above reason.
c)Regarding claims 15-16, the claims state: “target sensing value”. It is not clear from the claims how the target sensing value different from the capacitance value.
For examination purposes, the examiner is taking a position that “target sensing value” is referring to the “capacitance value” of claim 14 until further explanation is given by the applicants.
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, 7-8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated, as best understood, by Frangen et al (DE 102014211822 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Frangen et al disclose [see Fig. 1 above] a capacitor sensor (112) comprising: a first sensing channel (capacitive sensor element 106) operating in a first operation mode to detect a first target sensing capacitance value (first capacity 114), the first operation mode including a capacitance detection mode; and a second sensing channel (second capacitive sensor element 108) operating in a second operation mode to detect a second target sensing capacitance value (second capacity 118), the second operation mode including a capacitor calibration mode.
Regarding claim 7, Frangen et al disclose [see Fig. 1 above] an electronic device (device 100) comprising a target metal segment (test device 104); and a capacitor sensor (112) connected to the target metal segment (104) and including: a first sensing channel (capacitive sensor element 106) operating in a first operation mode to detect a first target sensing capacitance value (first capacity 114), the first operation mode including a capacitance detection mode; and a second sensing channel (second capacitive sensor element 108) operating in a second operation mode to detect a second target sensing capacitance value (second capacity 118), the second operation mode including a capacitor calibration mode.
Regarding claim 8, Frangen et al disclose a processor (evaluation device 110) configured to, in response to the first capacitive sensing value (114) satisfying a target threshold, instruct the second sensing channel (108) of the capacitor sensor (112) to operate in the second operation mode.
Regarding claim 14, Frangen et al disclose a processing method comprising: obtaining a first capacitance value (first capacity 114) detected by a first sensing channel (capacitance sensing element 106) of a capacitor sensor (112) operating in a first operation mode, the first operation mode including a capacitance detection mode; in response to the first capacitance value (114) satisfying a target threshold, determining that the target object (hollow body 102) is in contact with the target metal segment (tester device 104); and obtaining a second capacitance value (second capacity 118) in response to the target object (102) being in contact with the target metal segment (104), the second capacitance value (114) being detected by a second sensing channel (capacitance sensing element 108) of the capacitor sensor (112) operating in a second operation mode, the second operation mode including a capacitor calibration mode.
Regarding claim 15, Frangen et al disclose wherein obtaining the first capacitance value (114) includes: obtaining [via sensing element 106] a plurality of first capacitance values (114), different first capacitance values (114) indicating.
Regarding claim 16, Frangen et al disclose wherein obtaining the second capacitance value (118) includes: obtaining [via sensing element 108] a plurality of first capacitance values (118).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 9-12 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 2 and 9, the reason for the allowance of the claims was given by the examiner in the Office Action mailed on April 9, 2026 .
Base on the amendment to the claims the following is being applied:
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 JERMELE M HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1960. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Lee E Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights