DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1–10 are pending and have been examined on the merits below.
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 .
Domestic Benefit
No claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, or 365(c) is of record. The application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). It is not a national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. 371.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on July 11, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The priority document was electronically received by the Office on July 24, 2024.
Application number: JP 2023-113831
Country of filing: Japan
Filing date: July 11, 2023
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 9, 2024 was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title “STRETCHABLE DEVICE” is not descriptive of the invention claimed. 37 CFR 1.72(a); MPEP 606.01. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title or similar is suggested: STRETCHABLE DEVICE WITH A BONDED REGION AND AN UNBONDED REGION IN EACH OF A PAIR OF STRETCHABLE RESINS.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the detection hinge.” Claim 1 recites “detection hinges.” There is no antecedent basis for the singular. When more than one hinge is a detection hinge, the claim does not identify which hinge is meant. Claim 2 also recites “the body coupled to the detection hinge.” Claim 1 recites a plurality of bodies coupled to each other by the hinges, so more than one body is coupled to a detection hinge. The claim does not identify which body must overlap the detection region.
Claims 4, 6, 8, and 10 depend from claim 2 and are rejected for incorporating the indefiniteness of claim 2. Claim 4 depends from claim 2. Claim 6 depends from claim 2. Claim 8 depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 2. Claim 10 depends from claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(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; or
(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.
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.
Hyodo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0114616 A1, names Yosuke Hyodo, Takumi Sano, Hiroumi Kinjo, and Masatomo Hishinuma. It was effectively filed on October 4, 2022, as JP 2022-160367. It published on April 4, 2024, which is after the foreign priority date of July 11, 2023. Hyodo is applied under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The inventive entity is not the same, because Hyodo names Takumi Sano and the present application does not. No statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) is of record. Common assignment does not remove the reference. See MPEP 2154.02(c).
A. Prior Art Rejections Based on Primary Reference Hyodo
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyodo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0114616 A1 (“Hyodo”), in view of Rogers et al., U.S. Patent 8,217,381 B2 (“Rogers”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hyodo teaches a stretchable substrate (resin base member 10; FIG. 2; [0030]; the base member that carries the bodies and the hinges) comprising a plurality of bodies (bodies 11; FIG. 2; [0030]; bodies arrayed separately from each other) and a plurality of hinges that couple the bodies to each other (hinges 12; [0030]; hinges that couple adjacent bodies 11); and a pair of stretchable resins with the stretchable substrate interposed therebetween (first resin plate 60 and second resin plate 70; FIG. 2; [0028]; the two plates are elastic and flexible, and 10 is sandwiched between them), wherein the stretchable device includes a detection region in which a load is capable of being detected (detection region 2; [0019]; the region in which the amount of strain of the stretchable device can be detected) and a non-detection region when viewed in a stacking direction in which the stretchable substrate and the stretchable resins overlap (peripheral region 3; [0019]; a frame-like region surrounding 2, which is a non-detection region in that view), one or more of the hinges are detection hinges each provided with a strain gauge (strain gauges 34 stacked on the respective hinges 12; [0047]; a hinge that has 34 is a detection hinge), and all of the detection hinges overlap the detection region when viewed in the stacking direction ([0049]; 34 are disposed in 2, so each hinge provided with 34 overlaps 2).
Hyodo does not teach the remainder of claim 1. Plate 70 is provided to cover the hinge and the strain gauge ([0062]; FIG. 9), and 10 is provided on the upper surface of plate 60 ([0030]). Hyodo does not teach that each plate includes a bonded region overlapping the non-detection region and an unbonded region overlapping the detection region.
Rogers suggests the problem with bonding the interconnect to the elastomeric substrate along the interconnect. The bonded interconnect is then constrained by the substrate. Rogers solves that problem by a bonded region (claim 11; the first end and the second end of the interconnect; claim 4; a pattern of adhesive sites, so the bond is only at selected sites) that is bonded to (claim 11; each end is bonded to the elastomeric substrate) the substrate, and an unbonded region (claim 11; the central portion between the bonded ends) that is not bonded to (claim 11; the central portion separates from the elastomeric substrate) the substrate. The central portion is then free of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyodo so that each of resin plates 60 and 70 is bonded to resin base member 10 where the plate overlaps peripheral region 3, and is not bonded to resin base member 10 where the plate overlaps detection region 2, as taught by Rogers. Rogers improves Hydro by leaving the hinges unbonded along their length, so they lift and bend instead of stretching with the plates and breaking.
Regarding claim 2, Hyodo teaches of the bodies, the body coupled to the detection hinge overlaps the detection region when viewed in the stacking direction (bodies 11 coupled by hinges 12; [0030]; the transistors and 34 are disposed in 2; [0049]; a body 11 coupled to a hinge that carries 34 overlaps 2). The combination set out for claim 1 is applied for the remaining limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Hyodo teaches the unbonded region is provided with a contact surface in contact with the stretchable substrate ([0030] and [0062]; 10 is provided on the upper surface of plate 60, and plate 70 is provided to cover the hinge and 34, so the plate surface that faces 10 is in contact with 10). The claim 1 combination supplies not bonded (Rogers claim 4 and claim 11; the bond is only at the selected sites). Leaving Rogers’ central portion not bonded does not take away Hyodo’s covering contact. The plate still lies against 10. It is simply not bonded there.
Regarding claim 10, Hyodo teaches of the bodies, the body coupled to the detection hinge overlaps the detection region when viewed in the stacking direction (11 and 12 in 2; [0030], [0049]; as mapped for claim 2), and Hyodo teaches the unbonded region is provided with a contact surface in contact with the stretchable substrate ([0030], [0062]; as mapped for claim 9). The claim 1 combination supplies the regions that are bonded and not bonded.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyodo in view of Rogers as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Park et al., U.S. Patent 10,964,769 B2 (“Park”).
Regarding claim 3, The claim 1 combination does not teach the unbonded region has a hole passing through the stretchable resin (not in Hyodo [0062] or Rogers claim 11). Park suggests the problem. An insulating layer that remains over a hinge area is damaged when the stretchable substrate is elongated and stress is applied to the hinge area. Park solves that problem with a hole passing through (opening OP; claim 1; FIG. 3; an opening through the insulating layer) the layer where the hole overlaps (claim 1; OP overlaps the hinge area) the hinge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Park’s opening through each of Hyodo’s resin plates 60 and 70 where the plate overlaps the hinge that carries the strain gauge, as taught by Park, in order to keep the plate from being damaged at that hinge. The opening is in the region Rogers already leaves not bonded, because there is no resin there to bond to 10. Each plate remains bonded over peripheral region 3.
Regarding claim 4, Hyodo teaches of the bodies, the body coupled to the detection hinge overlaps the detection region when viewed in the stacking direction ([0030], [0049]; as mapped for claim 2). Park teaches the unbonded region has a hole passing through the stretchable resin (OP overlapping the hinge area; claim 1; FIG. 3; as mapped for claim 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5–8 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. Claims 6 and 8 would also have to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because those claims depend from claim 2 and incorporate its indefiniteness.
The feature that is not rejected is a recessed surface, in the unbonded region, recessed from the counter surface that faces the stretchable substrate toward the opposite surface (claims 5 and 6), and a viscous fluid disposed in that recessed surface (claims 7 and 8).
Rogers et al., U.S. Patent 10,497,633 B2, was considered and is not applied. It teaches a fluid containment chamber, a containment fluid that can be a lubricant, a device that is free-standing or tethered and not covalently bonded to the supporting surface, and stretchable interconnects in an island-bridge layout (FIG. 70A). It also describes recessed features in the supporting substrate. It does not teach a recessed surface in each resin of a pair of stretchable resins that sandwich the stretchable substrate, recessed toward the opposite surface of that resin, over a detection hinge provided with a strain gauge. The chamber is an enclosure, or a recess in the supporting substrate. It is not the claimed recessed surface of each sandwiching resin. Hyodo, Rogers U.S. Patent 8,217,381 B2, and Park do not supply that difference.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0087010 A1 (cited on the IDS) teaches air layers along the side surfaces of a wavy line portion, under a protective member that remains in contact with the support surface beside the line. It does not teach the recessed surface of claims 5–8, and it does not teach a strain gauge on a detection hinge between a pair of stretchable resins. It is not applied.
Kim, Maleki, Wei, and Ziaie, Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 138–146 (February 2009), was considered and is not applied. A middle PDMS layer has holes filled with liquid alloy, between a base layer and a top cap. The liquid alloy is the conductor at the joints. It is not a viscous fluid in a recessed surface of each of a pair of stretchable resins over a detection hinge provided with a strain gauge.
Double Patenting
No double patenting rejection is made. U.S. Patent 12,484,145 B2, which issued on the Hyodo publication applied above, claims a longer meander on a second hinge and a strain gauge on a first hinge. It does not claim a bonded region and an unbonded region of each of a pair of stretchable resins. The claims are patentably distinct on this record.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 1–4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 5–8 would be allowable if rewritten as set out above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P DULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, ELISEO RAMOS-FELICIANO can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
26 September 2026
/John P. Dulka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
