DETAILED ACTION
for
SENSING DEVICES
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 & 07/28/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 11/14/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrases “Provide a sensing device”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Sensing Device E.g. Strain Sensor Has Air Pressure Sensor Where Deformation of Elastic Walls Causes Air Pressure Changes Inside Cavity.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. (CN 214511151) “Submitted by Applicant on IDS”.
Regarding claim 1, Kong discloses a sensing device comprising: a cavity “the air pressure sensor 8 is placed in the closed cavity of the flexible body 3” including two elastic walls (3, left side & right side) disposed opposite to each other and a rigid wall (2) connecting the two elastic walls (Fig. 8), wherein the rigid wall is in a form of a tubular structure (Fig. 8 device is “long, round, and hollow”), and the two elastic walls (3) are configured to seal the tubular structure to form the cavity “the air pressure sensor 8 is placed in the closed cavity of the flexible body 3”; and an air pressure sensor (8) disposed within the cavity “cavity of the flexible body 3, wherein a deformation of the two elastic walls (3, left side & right side) changes air pressure within the cavity “cavity of the flexible body 3”, and the air pressure sensor (8) generating an electrical signal in response to the change of the air pressure [Fig. 9,
PNG
media_image1.png
473
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“the air pressure sensor 8 in the sealed cavity to detect the change of the air pressure value in the
flexible body 3,”].
Regarding claim 4, Kong further discloses the rigid wall (2) includes a first rigid wall (22, left side) and a second rigid wall (22, right side) that are connected to each other, the second rigid wall (22, right side) includes a substrate (23), and the air pressure sensor (8) is disposed on the second rigid wall (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Kong further discloses the first rigid wall (22, left side) being in a form of an arch or a U-shape (see annotated Fig. 8 above), and the first rigid wall (22, left side) being snapped onto the substrate (23) to form the tubular structure (Fig. 8 device is “long, round, and hollow”).
Regarding claim 8, Kong further discloses two elastic walls (3, left side & right side) are formed by elastomers that are disposed at two ends of the tubular structure “long, round, and hollow”, respectively, and are arranged opposite to each other (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Kong further discloses a flexible circuit board (5), wherein the flexible circuit board (5) covers an outer side of the rigid wall (22, left side) and does not cover or partially covers a second surface of elastomers (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Kong further discloses the flexible circuit board (5) extends in a direction perpendicular to an alignment direction of the two elastic walls (Fig. 1 & Fig. 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (CN 214511151) ) “Submitted by Applicant on IDS”.
Regarding claim 2, Kong further discloses Young's modulus of the rigid wall to Young's modulus of each of the two elastic walls (Fig. 1 and Fig. 8).
Kong fails to explicitly disclose each of the two elastic walls being greater than 1000.
The particular range/ size, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range/size of the elastic walls used by Prior Art in sensing devices that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the type of measurements and or/ intended use, etc. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed in the field of sensing devices, since it has been held that the range of article sizes disclosed in the prior art envelopes the recited range, and there is no showing of criticality of the recited range, such recited range would have been one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reven, 390 F.2d 997, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968).
Regarding claim 3, Kong further discloses a volume in the cavity (Fig. 8).
Kong fails to explicitly disclose a volume of the cavity is in a range of 1 mm.sup.3-100 mm.sup.3.
The particular range/ size, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range/size of the cavity used by Prior Art in sensing devices that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the type of measurements and or/ intended use, etc. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed in the field of sensing devices, since it has been held that the range of article sizes disclosed in the prior art envelopes the recited range, and there is no showing of criticality of the recited range, such recited range would have been one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reven, 390 F.2d 997, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968).
Regarding claim 6-7, 9, 11 and 13, Kong further discloses a first ridge wall.
Kong fails to explicitly disclose wherein Young's modulus of the first rigid wall is greater than 10 Gpa, the first rigid wall is in a range of 50 um-300 um and wherein Young's modulus of each of the elastomers is in a range of 10 KPa-10 MPa and the elastomers is in a range of 1 mm.sup.3-1000 mm.sup.3.
The particular range/ size, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range/size of the first ridge wall and each of the elastomers used by Prior Art in the sensing devices that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the type of measurements and or/ intended use, etc. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed in the field of sensing devices, since it has been held that the range of article sizes disclosed in the prior art envelopes the recited range, and there is no showing of criticality of the recited range, such recited range would have been one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reven, 390 F.2d 997, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968).
Regarding claim 10, Kong further discloses a first surface of each of the elastomers is one of an inclined surface (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Kong further discloses a deformation-limiting portion (3) configured to limit deformation of a second surface of the elastomers (1) in at least one direction, the second surface of the elastomers is in contact with the deformation-limiting portion (Fig. 8).
Regarding claims 14-15, Kong further discloses a deformation-limiting portion (3).
Kong fails to explicitly disclose the Young's modulus of the deformation-limiting portion is in a range of 0.5 GPa-10 GPa and a thickness of the deformation-limiting portion is in a range of 10 um-500 um.
The particular range/ size, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range/size of the of the deformation-limiting portion and each of the elastomers used by Prior Art in the sensing devices that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the type of measurements and or/ intended use, etc. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed in the field of sensing devices, since it has been held that the range of article sizes disclosed in the prior art envelopes the recited range, and there is no showing of criticality of the recited range, such recited range would have been one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reven, 390 F.2d 997, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968).
Regarding claims 16, Kong further discloses the deformation-limiting portion (3) being configured to limit deformation of the second surface (1) of the elastomers from being stretched or compressed in a first direction (Fig. 4); and the deformation-limiting portion (3) extends in an alignment direction of the two elastic walls, the first direction being an extension direction of the deformation-limiting portion (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Kong further discloses the deformation-limiting portion includes a flexible circuit board (5), the flexible circuit board (5) is disposed on an outer side of a substrate (23) and covers the substrate (23) and the elastomers.
Regarding claims 20, Kong further discloses a ratio of an area of the second surface of the elastomers covered by the flexible circuit board (6) to an area of an outer surface of a second rigid wall of the rigid wall (2) is not greater than 2 (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but listed on the PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) for disclosing similar systems.
LI discloses a pressure-sensing structure (100), a first mounting surface (10a) of a substrate (10) is provided with a first elastic carrier (20), and the first elastic carrier is provided with an electronic element. Upon distortion of the substrate (10), the elastic carrier is bent and distorted along with the substrate (10), and the substrate (10) amplifies a strain signal. A strain sensing member can detect a bending or distortion amount of the substrate (10), and a signal measurement circuit (40) outputs an identifiable electrical signal.
Jentoft discloses tactile sensor has a transducer mounted to a substrate, and a housing that encloses the transducer and forms a chamber between housing and transducer. The housing has at least one opening that connects the chamber and transducer to an area outside the housing. A force transmission medium e.g. elastic material defines a contact surface and provides a path to transmit contact force or pressure distribution applied to the contact surface to transducer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights