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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the body" in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of a prompt examination the examiner reads the claim 1 as the following:
1. A sensor floor tile comprising: a [[sensor flooring tile.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the limitation "the body" in line 3 and “the flooring tile” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
For purposes of a prompt examination the examiner reads the claim 20 as the following:
20. A sensor flooring system comprising: a [[a flooring tile; a sensor interface adapted and configured to receive a sensor output signal and translate the sensor output signal into a digital message; a network interface module adapted and configured to receive the digital message from the sensor interface and process the digital message; and a network adapted and configured to transmit the digital message from the sensor interface to the network interface module.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 25 recites the limitation "the body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
For purposes of a prompt examination the examiner reads the claim 25 as the following:
25. A method of tracking customer engagement within a retail environment, the method comprising the steps of: providing a [[.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the body" in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-19 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the body" in line 3 and “the flooring tile” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claims 21-24 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected claim 20.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the body" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MacKinnon et al., US 2014/0307118 (corresponding to US 9,557,198, that is listed in I IDS filed 09/03/2024).
In re Claim 1, MacKinnon discloses a sensor floor tile 210 (Fig. 2) comprising: a [[inherently having an upper surface, a lower surface and a periphery; and a sensor 220, operatively associated with the body, the sensor 220 adapted and configured to respond to pressure applied to the sensor flooring tile 210 (Figs. 1-5; [0010 – 0036]). It is inherent because any and every body has an upper surface, a lower surface and a periphery.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1- 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKinnon et al., US 2014/0307118 (corresponding to US 9,557,198 that listed I IDS filed 09/03/2024).
In re Claim 1, MacKinnon discloses a sensor floor tile 210 (Fig. 2) comprising: a [[inherently having an upper surface, a lower surface and a periphery; and a sensor 220, operatively associated with the body, the sensor 220 adapted and configured to respond to pressure applied to the sensor flooring tile 210 (Figs. 1-5; [0010 – 0036]).
In re Claim 2, MacKinnon discloses all limitations of Claim 2 while MacKinnon does not specify that the sensor 220 is applied to the upper surface of the body (301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309,310, 311, 312. 313. 314, 315, 316). Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to position the sensor 220 on the upper surface of the body (301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309,310, 311, 312. 313. 314, 315, 316) since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP2144.04.VI. C).
In re Claim 3, MacKinnon discloses all limitations of Claim 3 while MacKinnon does not specify that the sensor 220 the sensor is applied to the lower surface of the body (301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309,310, 311, 312. 313. 314, 315, 316). Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to position the sensor 220 on the upper surface of the body (301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309,310, 311, 312. 313. 314, 315, 316) since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP2144.04.VI. C).
In re Claim 4, MacKinnon discloses all limitations of Claim 4 while MacKinnon does not specify that the sensor 220 is adhered to the body (301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309,310, 311, 312. 313. 314, 315, 316) with an adhesive material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adhere the sensor 220 to the body (301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309,310, 311, 312. 313. 314, 315, 316) with an adhesive material since it was known in the art that it is routine and well – known technique to adhere the sensor 220 to the body with an adhesive material. (MPEP2144.I.).
In re Claim 5, MacKinnon discloses all limitations of Claim 5 while MacKinnon does not specify that the sensor 220 is printed on to the body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to print the sensor 220 to the body (301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309,310, 311, 312. 313. 314, 315, 316) since it was known in the art that it is routine and well – known technique to print the sensor. (MPEP2144.I.).
In re Claim 6, MacKinnon discloses all limitations of Claim 6 while MacKinnon does not specify that the sensor 220 is embedded in the body (301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309,310, 311, 312. 313. 314, 315, 316) between upper and lower surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to embed the sensor 220 in the body (301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309,310, 311, 312. 313. 314, 315, 316) since it was known in the art that it is routine and well – known technique to embed the sensor in the body. (MPEP2144.I.).
In re Claim 7, MacKinnon discloses the sensor floor tile of claim 1, wherein the sensor 220 includes a plurality of sensors (Figs. 2 and 3; [0015]).
In re Claim 8, MacKinnon discloses the sensor floor tile of claim 7, wherein the plurality of sensors 220 are arranged in an array (Fig. 2).
In re Claim 9, MacKinnon discloses the sensor floor tile of claim 1, wherein the sensor 220 is a resilient binary switch, closing a circuit in response to a force above a predetermined threshold ([0015]).
In re Claim 10, MacKinnon discloses the sensor floor tile of claim 1, wherein the sensor 220 is a proportional material, outputting a signal proportional to a force applied thereto ([0015-0018]).
In re Claim 11, MacKinnon discloses all limitations of Claim 11 while MacKinnon does not specify that the sensor is a piezoelectric material outputting varying voltage signal proportional to the force applied thereto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the as sensor since it was known in the art that sensors with piezoelectric material are well-known in the art. (MPEP2144.I.)
In re Claim 12, MacKinnon discloses all limitations of Claim 12 while MacKinnon does not specify that the sensor 220 includes a capacitive material outputting varying capacitance signal proportional to the force applied thereto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the sensor that includes a capacitive material since it was known in the art that it is well-known in the art. (MPEP2144.I.).
In re Claim 13, MacKinnon discloses all limitations of Claim 13 while MacKinnon does not specify that the sensor 220 includes a strain gauge material outputting varying resistance signal proportional to the force applied thereto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the sensor that includes strain gauge material since it was known in the art that it is well-known in the art. (MPEP2144.I.).
In re Claim 14, MacKinnon discloses the sensor floor tile of claim 1, further comprising: a sensor interface 260 adapted and configured to receive a sensor output signal and translate the sensor output signal into a digital message over a network ([0024]).
In re Claim 15, MacKinnon discloses the sensor floor tile of claim 14, wherein sensor interface 260 is adapted to: monitor traffic on the network; and delay sending a message on the network until no other network traffic is detected (Figs. 1-3; [0018 -0024]).
In re Claim 16, MacKinnon discloses the sensor floor tile of claim 15, wherein the delay is programmed to be a random delay (Figs. 1-3; [0018 -0024]).
In re Claim 17, MacKinnon discloses the sensor floor tile of claim 15, wherein the delay is programmed to be a unique delay based on a unique identifier of the sensor interface 260. The limitation the delay is programmed to be a unique delay based on a unique identifier of the sensor interface 260 is functional in that it attempts to define the claimed structure “by what it does rather than what it is.” Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2008), citing In re
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Swinehart
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971). When a claim limitation is defined in purely functional language, applicant has the burden of showing that a prior art device that appears reasonably capable of performing the allegedly novel function is in fact incapable of doing so. See MPEP § 2114. In the case at hand, Applicant explains in his specification that certain structures are capable of performing the recited function. Because of the close structural similarity between these structures and those of the prior art device, the prior art device is apparently reasonably capable of performing the recited function. Applicant should, in his response, provide evidence that the prior art is incapable of performing the recited function, if such evidence is available. Note that an allegation that those skilled in the art were unaware that the prior art structure was inherently capable of performing the recited function is legally insufficient to show that the prior art lacks the inherent capability. See MPEP § 2112, part III (“There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference”). Note that because the only issue is whether the functional limitation is in fact inherent in the prior art reference, an applicant’s explanation (and in fact any such explanation, made at any time, by anyone) of a given structure's ability to perform the recited function is available as evidence of that structure's inherent capability to meet the functional limitation.
In re Claim 18, MacKinnon discloses the sensor floor tile of claim 14, wherein sensor interface 260 is adapted to: await a message received confirmation signal from a network interface module; and if a confirmation signal is not received within a predetermined period of time, to retransmit the message. The limitation “await a message received confirmation signal from a network interface module; and if a confirmation signal is not received within a predetermined period of time, to retransmit the message is functional in that” it attempts to define the claimed structure “by what it does rather than what it is.” Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2008), citing In re
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Swinehart
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971). When a claim limitation is defined in purely functional language, applicant has the burden of showing that a prior art device that appears reasonably capable of performing the allegedly novel function is in fact incapable of doing so. See MPEP § 2114. In the case at hand, Applicant explains in his specification that certain structures are capable of performing the recited function. Because of the close structural similarity between these structures and those of the prior art device, the prior art device is apparently reasonably capable of performing the recited function. Applicant should, in his response, provide evidence that the prior art is incapable of performing the recited function, if such evidence is available. Note that an allegation that those skilled in the art were unaware that the prior art structure was inherently capable of performing the recited function is legally insufficient to show that the prior art lacks the inherent capability. See MPEP § 2112, part III (“There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference”). Note that because the only issue is whether the functional limitation is in fact inherent in the prior art reference, an applicant’s explanation (and in fact any such explanation, made at any time, by anyone) of a given structure's ability to perform the recited function is available as evidence of that structure's inherent capability to meet the functional limitation.
In re Claim 19, MacKinnon discloses the sensor floor tile of claim 1, wherein the sensor interface 260 includes a memory 130 adapted and configured to store a lifetime sensor actuation cycle count. (Figs. 1-5; [0010 – 0036]).
In re Claim 20, MacKinnon discloses a sensor flooring system comprising: a [[inherently having an upper surface, a lower surface and a periphery; a sensor 220, operatively associated with the body 210, the sensor 220 adapted and configured to respond to pressure applied to [[(Figs. 1-5; [0010 – 0036]). It is inherently because any and every body has an upper surface, a lower surface and a periphery.
In re Claim 21, MacKinnon discloses the sensor flooring system of claim 20, wherein the network interface module is adapted and configured to: receive the digital message from the network interface module; de-encode the digital message; read a tile identifier from the message; read activation data from the message; and retransmit processed data electronically to an attached device. The limitation “receive the digital message from the network interface module; de-encode the digital message; read a tile identifier from the message; read activation data from the message; and retransmit processed data electronically to an attached device” is functional in that it attempts to define the claimed structure “by what it does rather than what it is.” Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2008), citing In re
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Swinehart
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971). When a claim limitation is defined in purely functional language, applicant has the burden of showing that a prior art device that appears reasonably capable of performing the allegedly novel function is in fact incapable of doing so. See MPEP § 2114. In the case at hand, Applicant explains in his specification that certain structures are capable of performing the recited function. Because of the close structural similarity between these structures and those of the prior art device, the prior art device is apparently reasonably capable of performing the recited function. Applicant should, in his response, provide evidence that the prior art is incapable of performing the recited function, if such evidence is available. Note that an allegation that those skilled in the art were unaware that the prior art structure was inherently capable of performing the recited function is legally insufficient to show that the prior art lacks the inherent capability. See MPEP § 2112, part III (“There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference”). Note that because the only issue is whether the functional limitation is in fact inherent in the prior art reference, an applicant’s explanation (and in fact any such explanation, made at any time, by anyone) of a given structure's ability to perform the recited function is available as evidence of that structure's inherent capability to meet the functional limitation.
In re Claim 22, MacKinnon discloses all limitations of Claim 22 except for that the activation data includes a duration of sensor activation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the duration of sensor activation in the activation data since it was known in the art that it is well-known and routine practice. (MPEP2144.I.)
In re Claim 23, MacKinnon discloses all limitations of Claim 22 except for that the activation data includes a time stamp. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the time stamp in the activation data since it was known in the art that it is well-known and routine practice. (MPEP2144.I.)
In re Claim 24, MacKinnon discloses sensor flooring system of claim 21, wherein the network interface module is further adapted and configured to: receive and store physical location data of the [[
The limitation “receive and store physical location data of the [[Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2008), citing In re
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Swinehart
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971). When a claim limitation is defined in purely functional language, applicant has the burden of showing that a prior art device that appears reasonably capable of performing the allegedly novel function is in fact incapable of doing so. See MPEP § 2114. In the case at hand, Applicant explains in his specification that certain structures are capable of performing the recited function. Because of the close structural similarity between these structures and those of the prior art device, the prior art device is apparently reasonably capable of performing the recited function. Applicant should, in his response, provide evidence that the prior art is incapable of performing the recited function, if such evidence is available. Note that an allegation that those skilled in the art were unaware that the prior art structure was inherently capable of performing the recited function is legally insufficient to show that the prior art lacks the inherent capability. See MPEP § 2112, part III (“There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference”). Note that because the only issue is whether the functional limitation is in fact inherent in the prior art reference, an applicant’s explanation (and in fact any such explanation, made at any time, by anyone) of a given structure's ability to perform the recited function is available as evidence of that structure's inherent capability to meet the functional limitation.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al., US 2012/0309531(corresponding US 9,077,343 that is listed in IDS filed on 09/03/2024).
In re Claim 25, Gong discloses a method of tracking customer engagement within a retail environment, the method comprising the steps of: providing a [[inherently having an upper surface, a lower surface and a periphery; providing a sensor 106, operatively associated with the body 110, the sensor 106 adapted and configured to respond to pressure applied to the flooring tile 120; providing a sensor interface 112 adapted and configured to receive a sensor output signal and translate the sensor output signal into a digital message; providing a network interface module 1420 adapted and configured to receive the digital message from the sensor interface 114 and process the digital message; providing a network adapted and configure to transmit the digital message from the sensor interface to the network interface module; processing the digital message including the steps of receiving an identifier for the sensor interface 114; correlating the identifier with a predetermined position in space where tile body 110 is situated; receiving sensor activation data (Fig. 5); interpreting sensor activation data to determine a presence of a person 104 (Fig. 7) ; filtering data to exclude extraneous data; storing activation frequency and activation duration for each tile body 110; and transmitting activation frequency and activation duration for each tile body 110 to an attached system 904 (Fig. 9) (Figs. 1-15; [0021 – 0087]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights