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 7-9 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 7, the claim is directed towards a method of calibrating a force sensing device, however no steps are recited which are directed towards the calibration process. The claim does include a step of applying a force of a magnitude in excess of a predetermined magnitude to the force sensing device, however this step alone would not result in a calibration of the force sensing device itself, as no calibration is being performed. Rather, it can be interpreted as merely operating the force sensing device in a manner to detect a force with no calibration required and each of the steps will be interpreted as such.
All claims which depend from claim 7 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) 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts et al. US 2020/0035388.
Regarding claim 1, Roberts teaches, as seen in figs. 1A and 1B, a force sensing device comprising a first electrode (upper contact 101) and a second electrode (lower contact 101), said first electrode and second electrode arranged to provide an electrical output (current via ammeter 104) in response to an applied force (shown in fig. 1B) to determine a magnitude of said applied force (a detected current is measured), wherein said force sensing device further comprises a collapsible structure (upper electrode 106) configured to provide an electrical short circuit in response to said applied force when the applied force exceeds a predetermined magnitude (contact is formed between the two conductors 106 and 108, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 2, the electrodes of Roberts conduct electricity and therefore would comprise conductive layers as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Roberts teaches a method of calibrating a force sensing device including the steps of obtaining a force sensing device comprising a first electrode 101 (upper) and a second electrode (101 lower) arranged to provide an electrical output in response to an applied force, applying a force of a magnitude in excess of a predetermined magnitude to said force sensing device (the force applied is greater than the resting value), wherein a collapsible structure (upper electrode 106) arranged within said force sensing device provides an electrical short in response to the applied force. Although Roberts does not explicitly teach the calibration, however as all claimed steps are taught, the reference is deemed to read on the claim in its entirety.
Regarding claim 8, the system of Roberts operates to identify a point of collapse of said collapsible structure by means of said change in electrical resistance since the contact between electrodes 106 would identify a collapse.
Regarding claim 9, the system and method of Roberts adjusts an output of the force sensing device in response to the identification of a point of collapse as it generates a signal when contact is made.
Regarding claim 10, Roberts discloses the claimed structure as detailed in claim 1 above. In order to form such a structure the steps of:
arranging a first electrode and a second electrode to form a force sensing device configured to provide an electrical output in response to an applied force; and arranging a collapsible structure within said force sensing device, said collapsible structure being configured to provide an electrical short circuit in response to said applied force when said applied force exceeds a predetermined magnitude
would be performed since they would be required in order to arrive at the final arrangement.
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts.
Regarding claim 5, Roberts teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the collapsible structure as returning to an initial configuration from a collapsed configuration as claimed. Roberts teaches in fig. 3A for example, a similar device in which a deformable material 7 is provided between the electrodes that would recover to its original shape after receiving a force (paragraph 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined these teachings in order to allow for the sensor to return to its original shape for repeated use and sensing.
Regarding claim 6, Roberts teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the collapsible structure of fig. 1A as configured to expand in cross-sectional area in response to said force. However, as Roberts discloses the addition of an elastomeric material 7 which may be used as a conductive force sensing material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have uses a similar material as the collapsible structure in order to enhance its durability and prolong its lifespan during use by allowing it to expand and contract when contacted.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Williams US 2015/0338303.
Regarding claim 3, Roberts discloses the claimed invention but does explicitly teach the variable resistive layer on the first or second electrode layer as claimed. Williams teaches a force sensor which includes a resistive force sensing layer 208 which can be variably resistive (fig. 7 shows a graph of the varying resistance as the force therein changes, paragraph 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Williams with those of Roberts in order to provide a similar variably resistive layer which would be capable of detecting not only a force, but the magnitude of the force.
Regarding claim 4, Roberts teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the substrates on which the electrodes are provided. Williams teaches a force sensor in which sensing elements are mounted to substates 202 and 212. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Williams with those of Roberts in order to provide substrates to the electrodes to protect them from damage when contacted.
Regarding claim 11, Roberts teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the substrates on which the electrodes are provided. Williams teaches a force sensor in which sensing elements are mounted to substates 202 and 212. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Williams with those of Roberts in order to provide substrates to the electrodes to protect them from damage when contacted.
Regarding claim 12, Roberts discloses the claimed invention but does explicitly teach the variable resistive layer applied on the first or second electrode layer as claimed. Williams teaches a force sensor which includes a resistive force sensing layer 208 which can be variably resistive (fig. 7 shows a graph of the varying resistance as the force therein changes, paragraph 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Williams with those of Roberts in order to provide a similar variably resistive layer which would be capable of detecting not only a force, but the magnitude of the force.
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