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 .
Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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(s) 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, and 19 is/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 claim 2: It is unclear which light receiving unit the phrase “farther from a center of the light receiving unit group” is being referred to. Is it the first light receiving unit or both the first and second light receiving units? Furthermore, it is unclear what light receiving units are being referred to in terms of the “larger region.”. Claim 1 recites “four or more first light receiving units in a first direction, and four or more second light receiving units arranged in a second direction.” Claim 2 then recites “the first light receiving unit and the second light receiving unit.” There can be any number of light receiving units beyond three therefore this language needs to be more specific.
Regarding claim 5: It is unclear what it means for each of the light receiving units to include “one section of light receiving elements included in an image sensor.” There are different types of image sensors (CCD, CMOS, photodiode, etc.) therefore there is no set definition of “light receiving elements included in an image sensor.” Furthermore, any light sensing element could conceivably be used to construct an image sensor.
Regarding claims 9 and 10: The phrase “a hole through which light can be extracted to the elastic body” is indefinite. Light is not something that can be extracted. The Examiner recommends using language such as “a hole through which the light passes after being emitted from the light source” or something similar.
Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 appears to be contradictory based on the Applicant’s disclosure. All of the Applicant’s embodiments either have the light source located on the same layer as the light receiving units (FIG. 2) or the light source is located on a layer below the light receiving units (FIG. 20) and the light passes through a hole in the layer that supports the light receiving units. It is therefore indefinite and contradictory to claim a base material layer with the light source, the light receiving units, and the hole.
Regarding claim 13: The phrasing of claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “in the light transmission layer” at the end of the claim pertains back to “a lens” or back to “forming an image of the reflection unit.” That is, does claim 13 mean to say that a lens, that is located in the light transmission layer, is capable of forming an image of the reflection unit, or does claim 13 mean to say that there is a lens that is capable of forming an image of the reflection unit, wherein the image is located in the light transmission layer?
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 recites selecting output signals with the smallest amount of error, however it does not define or explain how this error is measured or calculated. For there to be a known “detection error” there has to be a known way that the error is determined by measurement, calculation, calibration, etc. Therefore, not specifying how the error is determined amounts to an omission of an essential element of the invention. This claim has not been further examined.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, 14-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by KATSUHARA et al. (US 20220397469). Please note that the US publication, published 15 Dec 2022 does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a2). However, the WIPO publication of the Japanese application (to which KATSUHARA claims priority), with a publication date of 06 May 2021, does qualify under 102(a2). The US publication is considered an English language equivalent of the WIPO publication therefore all references to KATSUHARA will be to the US publication.
Regarding claim 1: KATSUHARA discloses: A force sensor (FIGS. 1, 3, 4) comprising: a light receiving unit group (22); a reflection unit (50) provided above the light receiving unit group (FIG. 1); and an elastic body (60) provided between the reflection unit and the light receiving unit group (FIG. 1), wherein the light receiving unit group includes four or more first light receiving units arranged in a first direction (the light receiving devices 22 that are arranged horizontally in FIG. 4B), and four or more second light receiving units arranged in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (the light receiving devices 22 arranged vertically in FIG. 4B).
Regarding claim 2: As best understood, KATSUHARA discloses: wherein the first light receiving unit and the second light receiving unit farther from a center of the light receiving unit group has a larger region of a light receiving region (FIG. 4B shows that the light receiving devices 22 get larger as they are located away from the center of the unit.).
Regarding claim 3: KATSUHARA discloses: the four or more first light receiving units are arranged symmetrically with respect to a center of the light receiving unit group (The horizontal row of light receiving devices 22 is symmetrical as seen in FIG. 4B.), and the four or more second light receiving units are arranged symmetrically with respect to the center of the light receiving unit group (The vertical row of light receiving devices 22 is symmetrical as seen in FIG. 4B.).
Regarding claim 5: As best understood, KATSUHARA discloses: each of the first light receiving units and the second light receiving units includes one section of light receiving elements included in an image sensor (Para. 31 lists different technologies that can be used for the light receiving elements 22, including photodiodes which can be used in an array to make an image sensor.).
Regarding claim 6: KATSUHARA discloses: a light shielding layer (70 in FIG. 1; para. 26), wherein the light shielding layer (70) covers the elastic body (60) and the reflection unit (50; FIG. 1 shows this arrangement.).
Regarding claim 7: KATSUHARA discloses: the elastic body (60 in FIG. 1) includes an upper surface (top of 60 adjacent to 50) and a side surface (side portion of 60 around the curved surface), and the light shielding layer covers the upper surface and the side surface (FIG. 1 shows that light blocking section 70 covers both these areas.).
Regarding claim 8: KATSUHARA discloses: the reflection unit includes a light scattering body (curved reflective surface in para. 37 and protrusions and recesses in para. 57).
Regarding claim 9: As best understood, KATSUHARA discloses: a base material layer (20 in FIG. 1) including a light source (coming out of hole in 20 at 21), wherein the four or more first light receiving units (22) and the four or more second light receiving units (22) are provided on the base material layer, and the base material layer has a hole (21) through which light can be extracted to the elastic body (up to 60 through 21 and 30 in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 10: As best understood, KATSUHARA discloses: a light guiding layer (20 in FIG. 1), wherein the light guiding layer has a hole (at 21 above 11) through which light can be extracted to the elastic body (up to 60 through 21 and 30 in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 11: KATSUHARA discloses: a protrusion at a position corresponding to the reflection unit (FIG. 10 shows a continuous assembly of multiple sensors with a height protrusion at the position of each reflector. The reflectors are unlabeled in FIG. 10, but are clearly visible. They are labeled as 50 in FIG. 1.).
Regarding claim 14: KATSUHARA discloses: the number of the first light receiving units (horizontally arranged set of 22 elements in FIG. 4B) arranged in the first direction is six or more (six are shown in FIG. 4B), and the number of the second light receiving units (vertically arranged set of 22) arranged in the second direction is six or more (six are shown in FIG. 4B).
Regarding claim 15: KATSUHARA discloses: A force sensor comprising: a plurality of light receiving unit groups (FIGS. 10, 11, light receiving units are 22 in FIG. 1); a plurality of reflection units provided above each of the light receiving unit groups (visible in FIG. 10, but shown in detail as 50 in FIG. 1); and an elastic layer (not labeled in FIG. 10, but shown in detail as 60 in FIG. 1) provided between the plurality of reflection units and the plurality of light receiving unit groups (FIG. 1), wherein the light receiving unit group includes four or more first light receiving units arranged in a first direction (The horizontally arranged 22s in FIG. 4B), and four or more second light receiving units arranged in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (The vertically arranged 22s in FIG. 4B).
Regarding claim 16: KATSUHARA discloses: the elastic layer (60 in FIG. 1) includes a groove (Gap G in FIG. 10) between the adjacent light receiving unit groups in plan view (FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 20: KATSUHARA discloses: A robot hand comprising the force sensor according to claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above and using it in a robot hand is discussed in para. 2, 5.).
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) 4, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATSUHARA in view of TAR et al. (US 2014/0326882).
Regarding claims 4 and 17: KATSUHARA discloses: a light source (11 in FIG. 1) provided at a position corresponding to the reflection unit (directly under reflection unit 50).
KATSUHARA does not disclose a lens.
TAR however does disclose a lens (30’; para. 65) on the light source (20) on their robotic grip sensor (para. 2-3), that is structurally similar to that of KATSUHARA (compare FIG. 8 of TAR to FIG. 1 of KATSUHARA). Multiple lenses applied to the multiple light sources of KATSUHARA in the array embodiments shown in FIGS. 9-11 meet the limitations of claim 17.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the lens of TAR on the light source of KATSUHARA because it allows the path of the light beam to be tuned (para. 65 of TAR), thus allowing more accurate detection of the displacement of the outer surface of the sensor.
Regarding claim 13: As best understood, KATSUHARA discloses: a light transmission layer (30 in FIG. 1) provided between the elastic body (60) and the light receiving unit group (22).
KATSUHARA does not disclose a lens.
TAR however does disclose a lens (30’; para. 65) on the light source (20) on their robotic grip sensor (para. 2-3), that is structurally similar to that of KATSUHARA (compare FIG. 8 of TAR to FIG. 1 of KATSUHARA).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the lens of TAR on the light source of KATSUHARA because it allows the path of the light beam to be tuned (para. 65 of TAR), thus allowing more accurate detection of the displacement of the outer surface of the sensor.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATSUHARA in view of FONOV et al. (US 20050115331).
Regarding claim 12: KATSUHARA does not disclose a wavelength conversion layer or a filter.
FONOV however does teach a wavelength conversion layer in the form of distributed luminophores (para. 55); and a color filter (32 in FIG. 8; para. 60) that covers the light receiving unit group (sensor 26), on their invention for detecting small displacements of a surface due to applied force (abstract, para. 3-5).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the wavelength conversion layer and color filter of FONOV in the force sensor of KATSUHARA so that the particular optical properties of the light can be tuned to produce the clearest signal from the combination of light source and the light detector.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATSUHARA in view of SUGAHARA et al. (WO 2021033455). A machine translation of SUGAHARA has been included with this office action. All references to text in SUGAHARA are to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 18: KATSUHARA discloses: A sensor module comprising: the sensor according to claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above.); and a detection unit (23, 24).
KATSUHARA only generally references signal processing in para. 32-35 and does not give any detail on the actual algorithm used to process the signals from the light receiving devices.
SUGAHARA however does teach a difference between output signals included in a first linear region from among differences between output signals of a pair of the first light receiving units (page 6 lines 7-24), and selects a difference between output signals included in a second linear region from among differences between output signals of a pair of the second light receiving units (from multiple pairs of sensors as shown in FIG. 19).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to differentially process the output of the optical detectors of KATSUHARA as taught by SUGAHARA because it allows the evaluation unit to calculate the amount of movement and force that was applied to the surface of the unit (page 6 lines 7-24 of SUGAHARA).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other references have been added to the Notice of References Cited for teaching similar force sensors that work by a deflection of light from a central light source to surrounding light detectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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 M Sweeney 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights