NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,152,910 B2, to Evke et al. (from hereinafter “Evke Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a combination of claims from Evke patent anticipate the limitations found in the independent claim and the dependent claims of the instant application.
For the purpose of illustration, only Claim 1 of the instant application is compared with Claim 1 of the Evke patent in the following table (underlining is used to indicate conflicting limitations):
Instant application
Patent No. US 12,152,910 B2
Claim 1, a sensor device comprising:
a substrate having a plurality of cuts through the substrate to define a set of substrate sections, the substrate being flexible; and
a plurality of sensor structures supported by the substrate, each sensor structure of the plurality of sensor structures being disposed at a respective substrate section of the set of substrate sections;
wherein deformation of the substrate deforms each respective substrate section of the set of substrate sections such that each respective substrate section is deformed to a respective extent, and
wherein each sensor structure of the plurality of sensor structures is configured to provide an indication of the respective extent of the deformation.
Claim 1, a sensor device comprising:
a substrate having a plurality of cuts through the substrate to define a set of substrate sections, the substrate being flexible and, via the plurality of cuts, capable of conforming to a curved surface having a shape; and
a plurality of sensor structures supported by the substrate, each sensor structure of the plurality of sensor structures being disposed at and on a respective substrate section of the set of substrate sections;
wherein deformation of the substrate to conform the substrate to the curved surface deforms each respective substrate section of the set of substrate sections such that each respective substrate section is deformed to a respective extent, and
wherein each sensor structure of the plurality of sensor structures is configured to provide an indication of the respective extent of the deformation and the shape of the curved surface.
Although the scope of claims of the instant application and claims of the Evke patent are very similar, the difference between the present claimed invention and the Evke patent is that the Evke patent has “via the plurality of cuts, the flexible substrate being capable of conforming to a curved surface having a shape”. However, the cuts are not required in the instant application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the teaching of the Evke patent as a general teaching to arrive at the instant invention because the similar elements and operational conditions are disclosed in both apparatus in order to accomplish the goal of having a sensor device.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or to eliminating the additional elements or limitations of claims 1-35 of Evke 4 Patent to arrive at claim 1 of the instant application because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that the remaining elements or limitations would perform the same functions as before to accomplish the goal of having a sensor device. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Takei et al. (JP 2018105775 (A), cited by the applicants, “Takei”).
Regarding Claim 1, Takei teaches a sensor device (fig.1) comprising: a substrate (fig.1; element 1) having a plurality of cuts (fig.1; elements 7) through the substrate to define a set of substrate sections (fig.1; elements 14a-14d, resilient structure), the substrate being flexible ([0006]: a flexible substrate); and a plurality of sensor structures (fig.1; elements 15a-15c) supported by the substrate, each sensor structure of the plurality of sensor structures being disposed at a respective substrate section of the set of substrate sections (fig.1; elements 14a-14d); wherein deformation of the substrate deforms each respective substrate section of the set of substrate sections (fig.1; elements 14a-14d) such that each respective substrate section is deformed to a respective extent ([0020]-[0023]), and wherein each sensor structure of the plurality of sensor structures (fig.1; elements 15a-15c) is configured to provide an indication of the respective extent of the deformation ([0020]-[0023]).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Iida et al. (US 2013/0234734 A1) teaches a sensor unit is provided and includes a first substrate, first and second electrodes, an input portion disposed so that a gap exists between the substrate and the input portion, a plurality of first structures disposed in the gap and extending at least partially between the first substrate and the input portion, and a second insulating structure disposed on a side of the first structures that is away from the input portion, or between adjacent first structures. The sensor unit is configured to detect a change in capacitance between the first and second electrodes upon a change in position of the input portion relative to the first substrate [Abstract].
Papakostas et al. (US 6,964,205 B2) teaches a sensor for measuring a parameter applied to a surface is provided. The sensor includes at least one substrate layer, a plurality of individual sensor elements operatively arranged with respect to the substrate layer, and a conductive trace disposed on the substrate layer. The conductive trace is electrically coupled to an individual sensor element and wraps around at least a portion of the sensor element in a spiral-like manner. Further, by employing slits or cut-outs of material between sensor elements, a sensor element may move independent of an adjacent sensor element, thereby allowing the sensor to conform to an irregularly shaped surface or otherwise when subject to relatively large deflections. The sensor may be employed to detect force distribution of a seating surface, such as a seat cushion of a wheelchair [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights