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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the claims recite the limitation that the first sensor and second sensor “are bent as the flexible substrate is bent.” It is unclear if the limitation means that the sensors are bendable, or that they are physically bent into a fixed position.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
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) 11, 12, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ando et al. US 2014/0049137.
Regarding claim 11, Ando teaches, as seen in fig. 9(B) a deformation detection sensor comprising:
a flexible substrate 20 including a substrate upper main surface (tope side) and a substrate lower main surface (bottom side) arranged in a vertical direction;
a first sensor 35 on the substrate upper main surface and including a first piezoelectric film 350 (paragraph 0121 ; and
a second sensor 36 on the substrate lower main surface and including a second piezoelectric film 360 (paragraph 0122),
wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are bent as the flexible substrate is bent so as to project in an upper direction or a lower direction (abstract, fig. 10B) and
the first piezoelectric film of Ando includes a first upper main surface and a first lower main surface (top and bottom surfaces of the element 350) and the second piezoelectric film includes similar second upper and second lower main surfaces as seen in fig. 9(B).
Regarding claim 12, the first sensor of Ando further includes a first upper electrode 351 on the first upper main surface and a first lower electrode 352 on the first lower main surface, and a second upper electrode 362 on the first upper main surface and a second lower electrode 361 on the first lower main surface.
Regarding claim 17, the sensors of Ando are stacked in a vertical direction such that the second sensor overlaps the first sensor when viewed in the vertical direction as seen in fig. 9(B).
Regarding claim 19, the piezoelectric film of Ando has a piezoelectric constant of d14 as claimed (paragraph 0102, 0252).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando and Fujii et al. US 2002/0149296.
Regarding claim 1, Ando teaches, as seen in fig. 9(B) a deformation detection sensor comprising:
a flexible substrate 20 including a substrate upper main surface (tope side) and a substrate lower main surface (bottom side) arranged in a vertical direction;
a first sensor 35 on the substrate upper main surface and including a first piezoelectric film 350 (paragraph 0121 ; and
a second sensor 36 on the substrate lower main surface and including a second piezoelectric film 360 (paragraph 0122),
wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are bent as the flexible substrate is bent so as to project in an upper direction or a lower direction (abstract, fig. 10B).
Ando does not explicitly teach the thickness in the vertical direction of the second piezoelectric film is larger than a thickness in the vertical direction of the first piezoelectric film as claimed.
Fujii teaches a piezoelectric device as seen in fig. 24 for example, which can be used in a detector (paragraph 0004), which includes a flexible substrate 1, a first piezoelectric film 3 and a second piezoelectric film 2, wherein the thickness of the first piezoelectric film in a vertical direction is larger than a thickness in the vertical direction of the first piezoelectric film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Fujii with those of Ando in order to provide a similar piezoelectric device with two different thicknesses in order to increase resistance to a tensile force and increase durability of the sensor.
Regarding claim 2, in combination, the first piezoelectric film of Ando includes a first upper main surface and a first lower main surface (top and bottom surfaces of the element 350) and the second piezoelectric film includes similar second upper and second lower main surfaces as seen in fig. 9(B).
Regarding claim 3, the first sensor of Ando further includes a first upper electrode 351 on the first upper main surface and a first lower electrode 352 on the first lower main surface, and a second upper electrode 362 on the first upper main surface and a second lower electrode 361 on the first lower main surface.
Regarding claim 8, the sensors of Ando are stacked in a vertical direction such that the second sensor overlaps the first sensor when viewed in the vertical direction as seen in fig. 9(B).
Regarding claim 9, Ando teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the third and fourth sensors as claimed. Fujii discloses as seen in fig. 11 for example, a sensing system in which multiple piezoelectric sensors 5 are provided on a substrate 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Fujii and Ando to provides multiple instances of the sensor 10C of Ando which would allow for additional sensing to occur over a wider area or for sensors with different sensitivities to be provided. In such an arrangement the sensor would comprise third and fourth sensors with the same arrangement as the first and second.
Regarding claim 10, the piezoelectric film of Ando has a piezoelectric constant of d14 as claimed (paragraph 0102, 0252).
Regarding claim 18, Ando teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the third and fourth sensors as claimed. Fujii discloses as seen in fig. 11 for example, a sensing system in which multiple piezoelectric sensors 5 are provided on a substrate 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Fujii and Ando to provides multiple instances of the sensor 10C of Ando which would allow for additional sensing to occur over a wider area or for sensors with different sensitivities to be provided. In such an arrangement the sensor would comprise third and fourth sensors with the same arrangement as the first and second.
Regarding claim 20, Ando teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the thickness in the vertical direction of the second piezoelectric film is larger than a thickness in the vertical direction of the first piezoelectric film as claimed.
Fujii teaches a piezoelectric device as seen in fig. 24 for example, which can be used in a detector (paragraph 0004), which includes a flexible substrate 1, a first piezoelectric film 3 and a second piezoelectric film 2, wherein the thickness of the first piezoelectric film in a vertical direction is larger than a thickness in the vertical direction of the first piezoelectric film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Fujii with those of Ando in order to provide a similar piezoelectric device with two different thicknesses in order to increase resistance to a tensile force and increase durability of the sensor.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando and Fujii as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kihara US 2017/0024048.
Regarding claim 4, Ando and Fujii teach the claimed deformation detection sensor with the exception of the first upper and second lower electrode connected to a ground potential as claimed. Kihara teaches a sensor comprising piezoelectric elements including outer electrodes 28 and 29 which are connected to a ground potential (paragraph 0034-0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Kihara with those of Ando and Fujii in order to provide a ground potential to the outer electrodes to provide a ground or reference for the piezoelectric elements.
Regarding claim 5, the processing circuitry 100 of Ando functions as an arithmetic circuit which calculates a difference between a first signal output and second signal output of the electrodes of the sensor 10 during operation paragraph 0111-0114).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, figure 9(B) illustrates the detection sensor with multiple directions and lengths which match those claimed.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kihara.
Regarding claim 13, Ando and Fujii teach the claimed deformation detection sensor with the exception of the first upper and second lower electrode connected to a ground potential as claimed. Kihara teaches a sensor comprising piezoelectric elements including outer electrodes 28 and 29 which are connected to a ground potential (paragraph 0034-0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Kihara with those of Ando and Fujii in order to provide a ground potential to the outer electrodes to provide a ground or reference for the piezoelectric elements.
Regarding claim 14, the processing circuitry 100 of Ando functions as an arithmetic circuit which calculates a difference between a first signal output and second signal output of the electrodes of the sensor 10 during operation paragraph 0111-0114).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, figure 9(B) illustrates the detection sensor with multiple directions and lengths which match those claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights