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.
Claims 9-10 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.
The term “dome-like” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dome-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification describes “dome-shaped” as being an example of a convex top, but is silent as to any description of what shapes would be considered “dome-like”. The limitation “the flexible body has a dome-like shape” is rendered indefinite by the usage of the term “dome-like”. For the purposes of further examination, the limitation is being interpreted as wherein a dome-like shape is any shape having a flat base and a convex top.
The term “generally” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “wherein the flexible body has a generally flat outer surface” is rendered indefinite by the usage of the term “generally”. For the purposes of further examination, the claim is being interpreted without the term “generally”.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sina et al. (Contact Behavior of Soft Spherical Tactile Sensors, 2014) (hereinafter Sina) in view of Alfadhel et al. (A Magnetoresistive Tactile Sensor for Harsh Environment Applications, 2016) (hereinafter Alfadhel).
Regarding claim 1, Sina teaches a force sensor (see Abstract) comprising: a magnetic sensing element [hall effect sensor], a flexible body [spherical hemisphere shell (dome) made of silicon rubber], and a magnet connected to the flexible body [embedded magnet] (see Section III, Fig. 1). Sina fails to teach a plurality of flexible projections having magnetic material embedded therein attached to the flexible body. Alfadhel teaches a force sensor comprising a magnetic sensing element and body integrated with a plurality of flexible projections having magnetic material embedded therein attached to the body [nanocomposite cilia] (see Pgs. 3-5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Sina with Alfadhel such to further comprise a plurality of flexible projections having magnetic material embedded therein attached to the flexible body, in order to increase force sensitivity.
Regarding claims 2-3, Sina in view of Alfadhel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the magnet is a permanent magnet embedded in the flexible body [embedded magnet] (see Sina Section III, Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 4-5, Sina in view of Alfadhel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the magnetic material comprises a magnetic body embedded in each flexible projection, wherein the magnetic material is a magnetic powder dispersed in the flexible projections. Alfadhel additionally teaches wherein the flexible projections are magnetic nanocomposite cilia synthesized with magnetic powder dispersed in the cilia (Pgs. 4-5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Sina in view of Alfadhel such that the magnetic material comprises a magnetic body embedded in each flexible projection, wherein the magnetic material is a magnetic powder dispersed in the flexible projections, in order to increase force sensitivity.
Regarding claim 6, Sina in view of Alfadhel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the magnetic sensing element comprises a Hall-effect sensor or a magnetoresistive sensor [hall effect sensors] (see Sina Section III, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Sina in view of Alfadhel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a substrate to which the magnetic sensing element and the flexible body are mounted [circuit board] (see Sina Section III, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Sina in view of Alfadhel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the flexible body is configured so that there is a space between the flexible body and the magnetic sensing element (see Sina Fig. 1).
As best understood regarding claim 9, Sina in view of Alfadhel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the flexible body has a dome-like shape (see Sina Section III, Fig. 1).
As best understood regarding claim 10, Sina in view of Alfadhel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the flexible body has a flat outer surface (see Sina Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Sina in view of Alfadhel as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the ratio of flexible projections to magnetic sensors is in the range of 1:1 to 50:1, and wherein the flexible projections are substantially cylindrical. Alfadhel additionally teaches wherein the ratio of flexible projections to magnetic sensors is in the range of 1:1 to 50:1 [3x3 cilia], wherein the flexible projections are substantially cylindrical (Pgs. 3-4, see Figs. 1-2 and 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Sina in view of Alfadhel such that the ratio of flexible projections to magnetic sensors is in the range of 1:1 to 50:1, and wherein the flexible projections are substantially cylindrical in order to increase force sensitivity.
Regarding claim 13, Sina in view of Alfadhel as applied to claim 1 above teaches a force sensor system comprising a plurality of force sensors according to claim 1 (see Rejection of Claim 1 above) mounted to one substrate [robots covered with complaint tactile sensors] (see Sina Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Sina in view of Alfadhel as applied to claim 13 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the substrate is a flexible printed circuit board (see Sina Figs. 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 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 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights