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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the earphone, loudspeaker, housing, pressure sensor and support member must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (NPL - Bio-Inspired Mechano-Sensor Based on the Deformation of Slit Wake).
Considering claim 1 Wang discloses a strain sensor, comprising:
- a substrate being provided with a groove structure (Page 3, 2.1 Fabrication of the “Hollow Out” Structures and Slit on the Solid Substrate, Figure 1); and
- an electrically conductive film affixed to a surface of the substrate (Page 3, 2.2 Fabrication of the Flexible Crack-Based Strain Sensor, Figure 1),
- a crack being provided at a position of the electrically conductive film corresponding to the groove structure (Pages 3-5, 3. Results and Discussion),
- wherein the groove structure extends in a first direction along a width of the substrate, and an aperture-like structure is provided at each of two ends of the groove structure along an extension direction of the groove structure (Figure 1, Figure 5).
Considiering claim 2, Wang discloses that the groove structure penetrates the substrate (Figure 1).
Considering claim 7, Wang discloses that a dimension of the groove structure in the first direction is greater than a dimension of the electrically conductive film in the first direction at the position of the groove structure (Figure 1b).
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (NPL - High-performance flexible strain sensor with bio-inspired crack arrays).
Considering claim 1, Han discloses a strain sensor, comprising:
- a substrate (PDMS) being provided with a groove structure (Figures 1-2; Pages 15179-15181); and
- an electrically conductive film (sputtered gold) affixed to a surface of the substrate (Figures 1-2; Page 15180),
- a crack being provided at a position of the electrically conductive film corresponding to the groove structure (Figure 3; Page 15184 “force enables cracks to be generated in the conducting layer”, “nanoparticles coated on the fracture surfaces of the microcracks are more likely to experience the tunneling effect than the particles on the flat surfaces when subjected to tensile stress” – tunneling effect based on gap caused by crack in the area of the groove),
- wherein the groove structure extends in a first direction along a width of the substrate, and an aperture-like structure is provided at each of two ends of the groove structure along an extension direction of the groove structure (Figures 1 and 2, terminating ends of the groove are considered “aperture-like structure”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in view of the disclosure).
Considering claim 3, Han discloses that the groove structure does not penetrate the substrate, and the electrically conductive film is disposed on a side of the substrate where an opening of the groove structure is located (Figures 1-2).
Considering claim 4, Han discloses that a dimension of the groove structure in a second direction along a length of the substrate is in a range of 1 μm to 50 μm (Figure 3, cracks are 3 μm or 4 μm).
Considering claim 9, Han discloses that the groove structure includes a first groove, a second groove, and a third groove that are arranged sequentially in a second direction along a length of the substrate, and a first spacing between the first groove and the second groove is equal to a second spacing between the second groove and the third groove (Figures 1b and 2b, Page 15180 “region with regular crack arrays”, under the BRI covers uniform or consistent pattern, as indicated by the figures).
Considering claim 11, Han discloses the use of a SYLGARD 184 (PDMS, Page 15179), which has a resistivity greater than 1×107 Ωm, and the electrically conductive film exhibits different resistances in response to changes in external stress (Figures 4-5; Page 15183-15185).
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (KR 20220120971 A).
Considering claim 1, Cho discloses a strain sensor, comprising:
- a substrate 10 being provided with a groove structure 11 (Figure 2; [0035-41]) and
- an electrically conductive film 20 affixed to a surface of the substrate 10 (Figure 2; [0039]),
- a crack 21 being provided at a position of the electrically conductive film corresponding to the groove structure 11 (Figures 2-5),
- wherein the groove structure extends in a first direction along a width of the substrate, and an aperture-like structure is provided at each of two ends of the groove structure along an extension direction of the groove structure (Figures 7 and 12).
Considering claim 5, Cho discloses that the groove structure does not penetrate the substrate, and the electrically conductive film is disposed on a side of the substrate opposite to a side where an opening of the groove structure is located (Figure 2).
Considering claim 7, Cho discloses that a dimension of the groove structure in the first direction is greater than a dimension of the electrically conductive film in the first direction at the position of the groove structure (Figures 7 and 12).
Considering claim 9, Cho discloses that the groove structure includes a first groove, a second groove, and a third groove that are arranged sequentially in a second direction along a length of the substrate, and a first spacing between the first groove and the second groove is equal to a second spacing between the second groove and the third groove (Figure 12).
Considering claim 11, Cho discloses the use of a non-conducting polyurethane as the substrate ([0038]), which has a resistivity greater than 1×107 Ωm, and the electrically conductive film exhibits different resistances in response to changes in external stress (Figures 10 and 13).
Considering claim 13, Cho discloses the use of a non-conducting polyurethane as the substrate ([0038]), wherein a resistivity of the substrate is greater than 1×107 Ωm, and the electrically conductive film exhibits a conductive state or a disconnected state under an action of an external stress (Figure 10; [0041]; [0064-67]).
Considering claim 14, Cho discloses that electrically conductive film is made of a conductive silver paste ([0039]).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 20220120971 A) in view of Yao et al. (CN 114608436 A).
Considering claim 6, Cho discloses that the groove structure length is embodied in examples of 137 to 180 μm (Figure 8) and mentions that the width is an adjustable parameter based on laser power ([0050]). The invention by Cho fails to explicitly disclose that a dimension of the groove structure in a second direction along a length of the substrate is in a range of 10 μm to 100 μm.
However, Yao teaches that the groove width is between 30-80 μm ([0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a groove width of between 10-100 μm, as taught by Yao, in the invention by Cho. The motivation for doing so is to provide a tailored response of the recess deformation and strain concentration, as is understood in the art. It is further noted that the dimensions are so close that the expected structure of either 137 μm and a value in the range of 10-100 μm would have produced similar properties (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Furthermore, the courts have long held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (NPL - High-performance flexible strain sensor with bio-inspired crack arrays) in view of Yao et al. (CN 114608436 A).
Considering claim 8, Han fails to explicitly disclose that the groove structure extends in a first direction along a width of the substrate, and a ratio of a dimension of the groove structure in the first direction to a dimension of the substrate in the first direction is in a range of 2/3 to 9/10.
However, Yao teaches that the groove structure has a dimension of 12 mm and the
substrate width is 15 mm ([0068 and 0071], whereby 12/15 = .8, which is between the
.667 and .9 ratio claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a groove dimension to substrate dimension ratio being between 2/3 and 9/10, as taught by Yao, in the invention by Han.
The motivation for doing so is to provide a tailored response of the recess deformation and strain concentration, as is understood in the art. Furthermore, the courts have long held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 20220120971 A) in view of Amjadi et al. (NPL - Parallel Microcracks-based Ultrasensitive and Highly Stretchable Strain Sensors).
Considering claim 10, Cho discloses that the groove structure includes equal spacing between grooves (Figure 12), while also disclosing that sensitivity can be adjusted by spacing of grooves ([0016]), spacing affects sensitivity ([0051]), and the use of various patterns for the grooves ([0052]), but fails to explicitly discloses unequal spacing between successive grooves.
However, Amjadi teaches the use of unequal spacing between successive grooves (Figure 1d; Page 5620, whereby irregular grooves in an elastomer film caused cracks in a top coated graphite thin film at the elastomer microgroove edge).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known equivalent technique of unequal groove spacing taught by Amjadi for the equal groove spacing disclosed by Cho, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Both Cho and Amjadi show a strain-to-resistance relationship, whereby resistance increases with strain. Given that equal and unequal groove spacing are shown to be functionally equivalent for the purpose of detecting strain in crack sensors, the unequal spacing, as claimed, would have provided repeatable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize unequal spacing between successive grooves in the invention by Cho, as taught by Amjadi.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 20220120971 A) in view of Saitou et al. (US 2011/0307214 A1).
Considering claim 12, Cho discloses that the electrically conductive film is made of a conductive silver, gold or platinum paste ([0039]), but fails to disclose carbon paste.
However, Saitou teaches the use of carbon in a conductive film that undergoes cracking during strain (Abstract; [0042]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known equivalent use of carbon paste taught by Saitou, for the silver, gold or platinum paste of Cho, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Saitou explicitly discloses the interchangeability of carbon, for gold or silver, for the intended purpose of providing a conductive material. Accordingly, both materials are functionally equivalent for that purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize carbon paste in the invention by Cho, as taught by Saitou.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 111473722 A) in view of Margolin. (US 5250227 A).
Considering claim 15, Wu discloses a method for preparing a strain sensor, comprising:
- etching a groove 4,5 structure on a substrate 1, the substrate being non-conductive (PDMS), wherein the groove structure extends in a first direction along a width of the substrate (Figures 1-2; [0034]), and an aperture-like structure is provided at each of two ends of the groove structure along an extension direction of the groove structure (Figures 1-2), coating a conductive paste on a PDMS substrate ([0013-14]), curing the conductive paste on the substrate to form an electrically conductive film ([0015-16]).
The invention by Wu fails to disclose obtaining the strain sensor by bending the substrate coated with the electrically conductive film to form a crack.
However, Margolin teaches coating a conductive paste on the substrate, curing the conductive paste on the substrate to form an electrically conductive film, and obtaining the strain sensor by bending the substrate coated with the electrically conductive film to form a crack (Column 1, line 63 – Column 2, line 55; Example 4, Table 8).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known equivalent technique of bend induced cracking taught by Margolin, for the etched cracks taught by Wu and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Both Wu and Margolin teach that the electrically conductive layer, once having cracks therein, registers a change in resistance based on an applied strain. Therefore, the two techniques are considered functionally equivalent for the purpose of providing a strain sensor. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat a conductive paste, cure the paste and stress the cured paste, as taught by Margolin, in the invention by Wu.
Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harjee et al. (US 2020/0100013 A1) in view of Cho et al. (KR 20220120971 A).
Considering claim 16, Harjee discloses an earphone 101 ([0049]), comprising:
- a loudspeaker 102 configured to generate a sound signal, and a housing (general structure of housing shown in Figures 1-2) configured to carry the loudspeaker 102 and a pressure sensor ([0046], [0101]), wherein the pressure sensor comprises a strain sensor ([0096]); and
- a support member for supporting strain sensor ([0096-97]).
The invention by Harjee fails to disclose that the strain sensor includes a substrate, the substrate being provided with a groove structure, and an electrically conductive film affixed to the surface of the substrate, a crack being provided at a position of the electrically conductive film corresponding to the groove structure, wherein the groove structure extends in a first direction along a width of the substrate, and an aperture-like structure is provided at each of two ends of the groove structure along an extension direction of the groove structure, the support member supporting the groove structure and the crack.
Cho discloses a strain sensor, comprising:
- a substrate 10 being provided with a groove structure 11 (Figure 2; [0035-41]) and
- an electrically conductive film 20 affixed to a surface of the substrate 10 (Figure 2; [0039]),
- a crack 21 being provided at a position of the electrically conductive film corresponding to the groove structure 11 (Figures 2-5),
- wherein the groove structure extends in a first direction along a width of the substrate, and an aperture-like structure is provided at each of two ends of the groove structure along an extension direction of the groove structure (Figures 7 and 12).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known crack sensor of Cho for the generic strain gauge of Harjee, and the results of the substation would have been predictable and repeatable. The strain gauge of Harjee converts applied force to an electrical signal and the crack sensor of Cho converts an applied force to an electrical signal. Therefore, the two techniques are considered functionally equivalent for the purpose of providing an indication of applied force. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the crack sensor technique, as taught by Cho, in the invention by Harjee.
Considering claim 19, Harjee fails to disclose the groove structure and the electrically conductive film.
However, Cho teaches that a dimension of the groove structure in the first direction is greater than a dimension of the electrically conductive film in the first direction at the position of the groove structure (Figures 7 and 12).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known crack sensor of Cho for the generic strain gauge of Harjee, and the results of the substation would have been predictable and repeatable. The strain gauge of Harjee converts applied force to an electrical signal and the crack sensor of Cho converts an applied force to an electrical signal. Therefore, the two techniques are considered functionally equivalent for the purpose of providing an indication of applied force. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a groove structure that has a greater length than the electrically conductive film dimension in the same direction, as taught by Cho, in the invention by Harjee.
Considering claim 20, Harjee fails to disclose the electrically conductive film.
However, Cho discloses that electrically conductive film is made of a conductive silver paste ([0039]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known crack sensor of Cho for the generic strain gauge of Harjee, and the results of the substation would have been predictable and repeatable. The strain gauge of Harjee converts applied force to an electrical signal and the crack sensor of Cho converts an applied force to an electrical signal. Therefore, the two techniques are considered functionally equivalent for the purpose of providing an indication of applied force. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an electrically conductive film made of silver paste, as taught by Cho, in the invention by Harjee.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harjee et al. (US 2020/0100013 A1) in view of Cho et al. (KR 20220120971 A), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (NPL - Facile fabrication of sensitivity-tunable strain sensors based on laser-patterned micro-nano structures).
Considering claim 18, Harjee, as modified by Cho, teaches an earphone having a strain gauge that detects a change in force as an input for controlling the earphone, but fails to explicitly disclose that the pressure sensor is configured to switch the pressure sensor from a conductive state to a disconnected state in response to a pressure applied by a user and generate a corresponding electrical signal.
However, Zhang teaches that crack sensors functionally provide a disconnect state under sufficient load (Figure 6c; Page 7, 3.5. Demonstrations for different requirements of sensitivity, “When the sensor was stretched, the light turned dim. Once exceeding a critical strain of over 50%, the sensor switched to a failure state and the LED went out suddenly”).
Therefore, while not expressly stated by Cho, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the pressure sensor to entered a disconnected state in response to an applied user pressure, as taught by Zhang, in the invention by Harjee, as modified by Cho. The principle of operation of the crack sensors of Cho and Zhang is that sufficient gaps occur under tensile load or close under compressive load, effectively creating an open circuit or too much resistance to supply sufficient power or creating a conductive pathway. The motivation for doing so is to provide a momentary interrupt switch to the earphone, whereby power can be turned on if pressure closes the cracks or turned off if pressure opens the cracks, such as to mute sound or to activate a function of the earphone through activation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Considering claim 17, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of a support member provided on the electrically conductive film or a side of the substrate where the electrically conductive film is located in an earphone, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi et al. and Lee et al. disclose multilayer strain sensors that utilizes cracks to change an electrical signal in response to an applied force.
Dubois et al. discloses a groove having circular apertures at both ends of the groove.
Kazama et al. discloses a pressure sensor having a sensor structure overlaying a groove with rounded apertures at both ends of the groove.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 September 30, 2026
