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
Claims 1-15 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.
As to claim 1, “metal film electrode comprise metal film layers” (lines 2-3) is confusing because “one” metal film does not provide two films. The two film layers 21,22 are not connected such that they are of a single layer (i.e. “a metal film”, lines 2,3) in Figures 3,4.
As to claim 1, “nanoscale thickness” is indefinite because Para 49 (Publication) refers to “usually only 5 to 250 nanometers” (italics added). The claimed term nanoscale means 1 billionth, and has no units of dimensions, so its dimensional significance/meaning is indefinite. That term “usually” (Para 49) introduced uncertainty as to whether the “a nanoscale” (claim 1) is limited to “only 5 to 250 nanometers”. What is one of ordinary skill to make of the dimensional meaning of the phrase “nanoscale thickness”? After all, it’s suggestive of a range without any numerical value. What is Applicant’s intent? (Note: Claim 5 is not rejected on this point.)
As to claim 1, “the liquid” (line 7) is not fully consistent with “a liquid containing electrolyte” (line 10). Is “the liquid” the “liquid containing electrolyte”? The specification suggests such is the case, but different claim terms suggest different breadths.
As to claim 2, “very small” (line 3) is indefinite. What might such mean?
As to claim 2, what are the alternatives in regard to the “or” (line 14)? Use of the term - - either - - is invaluable in providing such. Is the first alternative (“when … section”, lines 10-14), or does in lines 8-10?
As to claim 5,”the vacuum metal evaporation film layer” was never introduced.
As to claim 8, is “a waterproof covering layer” (line 2) the same element as claim 1’s “waterproof protective layer” (line 2, claim 1)? Is the same structure inadvertently being claimed twice? Paragraph 16 (Publication) only repeats the limiting material of claim 8.
As to claim 11, “the production equipment” (line 2) was never initially introduced.
As to claim 12, “the absorption layer” (line 3) was never initially introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,4,6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Huang et al CN 111077192.
Huang teaches a capacitive sensing film, comprising:
a metal film electrode 23,
a flexible substrate 12 and a waterproof protective layer 26, the metal film electrode comprise metal film layers 21,22 formed on the flexible substrate by deposition, and the waterproof protective layer covers the metal film electrode and forms an interlayer together with the flexible substrate, adapted to protect the metal film electrode, the metal film electrodes has a smooth surface
It's not clear whether the Refence employs “nanoscale”.
As to claims 1,6, either the crossed out material (especially, “a nanoscale thickness” (italics added)) can be provided weight because the numerical value/range of such is entirely indefinite as to any actual dimensional value, or in the alternative, one of ordinary skill may readily attribute a nanoscale dimensional value for thickness to Huang’s electrodes because all known structures can be attributed a dimensional value by relating any dimension units to 1 billionth. Note that Huang’s “1 to 30 microns” dimension for electrode thickness is the same as - - 1000 nanometers to 30,000 nanometers - - . Such range is indicative of “a reduce surface area” (line 6, claim 1) as compared to one of greater value (as much as claimed), necessarily providing for claim 1’s “is smaller” (line 11, claim 1) phrase. Finally, note that the claim employs product by process limitation(s), and that such articles are limited to their final product (and not the method employed to result in such).
As to claim 4, the thickness of the layer 26 is visibly less than that of the substrate 12 in Figure 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Huang et al CN 111077192.
Huang’s width of electrodes is 2-20 mm, the width of the film is 5-50 mm; but length of the film is not numerically stated.
As to claim 7, one of ordinary skill would recognize from drawings that the length of the film is between 25-250 by relating the width range of 5-50mm with Figure 2, resulting in a length in the drawing of 25-25 mm), suggestive of so employing such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10,12,13,14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang ‘192 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kajino JP 2021194372.
As to claims 10,12,13,14,15, it would have been obvious to employ radio transmission in Huang so that a care giver may be notified as to the condition of a individual.
“A diaper wearer; that is, an aged person or an infant; or a urine detection tag sensor mounted on a diaper worn by another diaper user and turned on by urine detection of the diaper wearer; and outputting an on signal; and a diaper wearer is disposed on, for example, a bed to be used by the diaper wearer; A sensing antenna to communicate with the urine detection tag sensor, a urination monitor including personal information of the diaper wearer, and an arbitrary number of information terminals carried by a caregiver or the like who is in charge of the caregiver of the diaper wearer, etc., are distributed to the information terminal, and the sensing antenna is provided. The urination detection system includes a required power supply to a urine detection tag sensor, and a transmission/reception controller which performs data transmission including the on-signal between the urine detection tag sensor and the urine detection tag sensor, and is included in the urine detection tag sensor; and is provided by the transmission/reception controller. A urine detection signal is generated by receiving a radio output signal using a change in inductance of a sensing antenna based on an on-signal of the urine detection tag sensor and a change in capacitance, and the personal information of the person wearing the diaper is associated with the urine detection signal. The urination detection system is constituted so that the urination detection report including the personal information of the person wearing the diaper is carried out by radio to the information terminal.” (Reference Kajino)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al KR 102522561 teach measuring a change in capacitance by contacting a capacitance sensor with liquid. The sensor employs an electrode upon which an oxide layer of 1 to 3 nm thickness is applied.
Kundal 20160238551 teach (Figure 2; Para 27) a capacitive sensor that measures fluid concentration (Figure 4). The dimensions of the electrodes in the sensor are in microns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights