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 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 17 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.
Claim 16 requires that the “fixing unit is a sewing thread, metal pin or a radiation-cured resin column” and claim 17 requires that “the radiation-cured resin column is an IR radiation-cured resin column or a UV radiation-cured resin column”. However, it is unclear whether claim 17 continues to embody the alternatives of sewing thread and metal pin or if it actually requires that the fixing unit is an IR radiation-cured resin column or a UV radiation-cured resin column. For purposes of examination, the Examiner shall simply interpret the language to modify the coequal alternative of radiation-cured resin column to be an IR radiation-cured resin column or a UV radiation-cured resin column. Thus, claim 17 would still require that the fixing unit is a sewing thread, metal pin, an IR radiation-cured resin column or a UV radiation-cured resin column. Claim 17 does not state that the fixing unit is a the radiation-cured resin column, merely which types of radiation-cured resin column can be used, if used at all.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orlewski et al. (US 7726207 B2).
Considering claim 1, Orlewski discloses a resilient force sensor unit, comprising:
- a top thin film substrate 12 (Figures 1-3; Column 4, lines 60-67);
- a bottom thin film substrate 14 (Figures 1-3; Column 4, lines 60-67);
- a thin film force sensing element 18 sandwiched between the top thin film 12 substrate and the bottom thin film substrate 14 (Figures 1-3; Column 5, lines 2-8), and
- a bottom protective layer 30, configured on a bottom surface of the bottom thin film substrate 14 (Figures 1-3; Column 5, lines 16-30);
- wherein the force sensing element 18 has a responsive area, when a force is applied to this area from top or bottom, the force sensing element will output a corresponding responsive signal (Column 5, lines 8-12).
Considering claim 2, Orlewski discloses the bottom protective layer 30 has a surface area roughly between 0.4-2.5 times of the responsive area of the force sensing element (Figures 1-3; Column 4, lines 16-40).
Considering claim 3, Orlewski discloses that the bottom protective layer has a surface area roughly the same as the responsive area of the force sensing element (Figures 1-3; Column 4, lines 16-40).
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.
Claims 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlewski et al. (US 7726207 B2) in view of Fukuda et al. (US 2007/0186689 A1).
Considering claim 4, Orlewski fails to explicitly disclose that the bottom protective layer has a thickness roughly between 0.1-2.0 mm.
However, Fukuda teaches the use of a bottom protective layer 10 for a pressure sensitive sensor element, wherein the thickness thereof is between 0.1-2.0 mm (Figure 9; [0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a protective layer with a thickness between 0.1-2.0 mm, as suggested by Fukuda, in the invention by Orlewski. The motivation for doing so is to provide protection without actually limiting the flexibility, and thus, sensitivity of the actual pressure sensing element, as suggested by Fukuda ([0116]).
Considering claim 5, Orlewski discloses that the material properties, including modulus of elasticity, of the rigidifying elements 30 can be adjusted to achieve a desired mechanical behavior and haptic response (Column 5, lines 49-59) fails to explicitly disclose that the bottom protective layer has a Young's modulus of 0.1-200 GPa.
However, Fukuda teaches the use of a thermoplastic elastomer or rubber material as the protective layer, which is understood in the art to have a Young’s modulus typically in the range of 0.01-.1 GPa, as is understood in the art.
Given the proximity/overlap of range of the prior art, as compared to the claimed range, in combination with the teachings of Orlewski, which renders the modulus of elasticity an adjustable property tailored to meet a desired mechanical feel or design, one of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the rigidity material of Orlewski for the known rubber material of Fukuda. Furthermore, the results of the substitution would have been predictable, repeatable and desirable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a protective layer with a Young’s modulus in the range of 0.1-200 GPa, as suggested by Fukuda, in the invention by Orlewski.
Considering claim 6, Orlewski inherently discloses that the bottom protective layer is flexible, non-flexible, or a combination thereof (Abstract, flexible or non-flexible covers all substances).
Considering claim 7, Orlewski inherently discloses that the bottom protective layer is metal, non-metal or a combination thereof (Column 4, lines 3-5, metal or non-metal covers all substances).
Considering claim 8, the invention by Orlewski fails to disclose a top protective layer configured on a top surface of the top thin film substrate.
However, Fukuda teaches additionally the use of a top protective layer 10 configured on a top surface of a top thin film substrate (Figure 9; [0111-112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an additional top protective layer in the invention by Orlewski, as taught by Fukuda. The motivation for doing so is to provide protection on both sides of the pressure sensitive element, as is understood in the art.
Considering claim 9, the combination of Orlewski, in view of Fukuda, already discloses that the top protective layer has a surface area roughly between 0.4-2.5 times of the responsive area of the force sensing element, because duplication of the lower protective layer onto the top layer would merely duplicate the component size as well (Figures 1-3; Column 4, lines 16-40).
Considering claim 10, the combination of Orlewski, in view of Fukuda, already discloses that the top protective layer has a surface area roughly the same as the responsive area of the force sensing element, because duplication of the lower protective layer onto the top layer would merely duplicate the component size as well (Figures 1-3; Column 4, lines 16-40).
Considering claim 11, Orlewski fails to explicitly disclose that the top protective layer has a thickness roughly between 0.1-2.0 mm.
However, Fukuda teaches the use of a top protective layer 10 for a pressure sensitive sensor element, wherein the thickness thereof is between 0.1-2.0 mm (Figure 9; [0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a protective layer with a thickness between 0.1-2.0 mm, as suggested by Fukuda, in the invention by Orlewski. The motivation for doing so is to provide protection without actually limiting the flexibility, and thus, sensitivity of the actual pressure sensing element, as suggested by Fukuda ([0116]).
Considering claim 12, the combination of Orlewski, in view of Fukuda, already discloses that the total thickness of the top protective layer plus the bottom protective layer is roughly between 0.2-4.0 mm, given the dimensions of the previously discussed top and bottom layers (Fukuda, [0116]).
Considering claim 13, the combination of Orlewski, in view of Fukuda, already discloses that a thickness of the top protective layer compared to a thickness of the bottom protective layer is roughly between 0.5 and 2, given the dimensions of the previously discussed top and bottom layers being identical (Fukuda, [0116]).
Considering claim 14, Orlewski discloses that the material properties, including modulus of elasticity, of the rigidifying elements 30 can be adjusted to achieve a desired mechanical behavior and haptic response (Column 5, lines 49-59) fails to explicitly disclose that the bottom protective layer has a Young's modulus of 0.1-200 GPa.
However, Fukuda teaches the use of a thermoplastic elastomer or rubber material as the protective layer, which is understood in the art to have a Young’s modulus typically in the range of 0.01-.1 GPa, as is understood in the art.
Given the proximity/overlap of range of the prior art, as compared to the claimed range, in combination with the teachings of Orlewski, which renders the modulus of elasticity an adjustable property tailored to meet a desired mechanical feel or design, one of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the rigidity material of Orlewski for the known rubber material of Fukuda. Furthermore, the results of the substitution would have been predictable, repeatable and desirable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a protective layer with a Young’s modulus in the range of 0.1-200 GPa, as suggested by Fukuda, in the invention by Orlewski.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlewski et al. (US 7726207 B2) in view of Fukuda et al. (US 2007/0186689 A1), as applied to claim 8, above, and further in view of Moriura et al. (US 2019/0277713 A1).
Considering claim 15, the invention by Orlewski, as modified by Fukuda, fails to explicitly disclose at least a fixing unit penetrating through the top thin film substrate and the bottom thin film substrate to prevent the two substrates from becoming misaligned.
However, Moriura teaches the use of a fixing unit 151,152 that penetrates both a top and bottom thin film substrate to prevent misalignment in a pressure-sensitive measurement element (Figures 10A-10D; [0199]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a fixing unit that prevents misalignment in the invention by Orlewski, as modified by Fukuda, as taught by Moriura. The motivation for doing so is to provide reliable detection of pressing forces by limiting relative displacement of the thin film substrates, as suggested by Moriura ([0073]).
Considering claim 16, the invention by Orlewski, as modified by Fukuda and Moriura, already discloses that the fixing unit is a sewing thread, metal pin or a radiation-cured resin column (Moriura, [0074]).
Considering claim 17, in view of the 112(b) rejection above, the limitation: the radiation-cured resin column is an IR radiation-cured resin column or a UV radiation-cured resin column, is already provided by the invention by Orlewski, as modified by Fukuda and Moriura, because it does not appear that the resin column has been selected from the coequal group of limitations, only that if it was, it would be an IR or UV radiation-cured resin column.
Considering claim 18, the invention by Orlewski, as modified by Fukuda, fails to disclose the fixing unit.
However, when applying the teachings of a fixing unit penetrating through the first and second films, as taught by Moriura (Figures 10A-10D; [0199]), to the invention by Orlewski, as modified by Fukuda, the fixing unit having a length roughly the same as a total thickness of the top thin film substrate plus the bottom thin film substrate is rendered obvious.
In the invention by Orlewski, as modified by Fukuda, the first and second top thin film substrates are in contact with one another, and thus, when the restraining thread of Moriura penetrates through the first and second films, it would have an effective length that is the combined thickness of the top and bottom thin films of Orlewski, as modified by Fukuda.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a fixing unit that has an effective length that is roughly the same as a total thickness of the top and bottom thin film substrates as taught by Moriura, in the invention by Orlewski, as modified by Fukuda. The motivation for doing so is to provide an approximately perpendicular restraining mechanism that limits as much lateral movement as possible, as would be understood in the art, due to the limited amount of slack provided.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlewski et al. (US 7726207 B2) in view of Moriura et al. (US 2019/0277713 A1).
Considering claim 19, Orlewski discloses a resilient force sensor unit, comprising:
- a top thin film substrate 12 (Figures 1-3; Column 4, lines 60-67);
- a bottom thin film substrate 14 (Figures 1-3; Column 4, lines 60-67);
- a thin film force sensing element 18 sandwiched between the top thin film 12 substrate and the bottom thin film substrate 14 (Figures 1-3; Column 5, lines 2-8).
The invention by Orlewski fails to disclose at least a fixing unit penetrating through the top thin film substrate and the bottom thin film substrate to prevent the two substrates from becoming misaligned.
However, Moriura teaches the use of a fixing unit 151,152 that penetrates both a top and bottom thin film substrate to prevent misalignment in a pressure-sensitive measurement element (Figures 10A-10D; [0199]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a fixing unit that prevents misalignment in the invention by Orlewski, as taught by Moriura. The motivation for doing so is to provide reliable detection of pressing forces by limiting relative displacement of the thin film substrates, as suggested by Moriura ([0073]).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlewski et al. (US 7726207 B2) in view of Moriura et al. (US 2019/0277713 A1), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Fukuda et al. (US 2007/0186689 A1).
Considering claim 20, Orlewski, as modified by Moriura, fails to disclose a top protective layer configured on a top surface of the top thin film substrate.
However, Fukuda teaches the use of a top protective layer 10 configured on a top surface of a top thin film substrate (Figure 9; [0111-112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an additional top protective layer in the invention by Orlewski, as modified by Moriura, as taught by Fukuda. The motivation for doing so is to provide protection on both sides of the pressure sensitive element, as is understood in the art.
Considering claim 21, Orlewski discloses a bottom protective layer 30, configured on a bottom surface of the bottom thin film substrate 14 (Figures 1-3; Column 5, lines 16-30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taylor (Taylot), various, disclose adhesive used to connect upper and lower thin films to one another in a vertical direction.
Viberg et al. (US 11659657 B2) discloses a unitary plastic and adhesive component that joins upper and lower substrates, with a lower protective member.
Matsumoto et al. (US 12222252 B2) discloses a metal pin or a thread extending through upper and lower surfaces of a load sensor mat to provide a fixation of an externally extending conductive wiring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 July 25, 2026
