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 .
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 1-13 and 18-20 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 1, it is unclear to how “the environment threshold indicates whether the external environment is an extreme environment.” How does the indication take place? Is some sort of signal sent? Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it seems as though the invention does not actually indicate whether environmental conditions fall within certain ranges (those ranges constituting extreme environments). Rather, the invention is configured to “tolerate (or be compatible with) any environmental condition within a respective environmental threshold (or range).” Specification, ¶ 0046.
Claims 2-13 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites that “the encapsulation material has a bending radius of approximately 1 centimeter and 2 centimeters.” Examiner will interpret this as “a bending radius of approximately 1 centimeter or 2 centimeters.”
Claims 19-20 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 18.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0137982 A1 (hereinafter “Hussain”).
Regarding claim 1, Hussain discloses a system, comprising:
an electronic system (multi-sensor system 300) including at least one rigid electrical component (power source 314, see ¶ 0042 stating that power source 314 may be a coin cell battery; computing device 318, see ¶ 0044 stating that computing device 318 may include a PSoC), the electronic system configured to interact with an external environment (see ¶ 0010 describing various sensors that interact with the external environment); and
an encapsulation material (packaging material 310, which includes first stretchable layer 320 and second stretchable layer 332) configured to enclose the electronic system (see ¶¶ 0009, 0011, 0031 and 0054), wherein the encapsulation material has a plurality of material properties (see ¶ 0030 disclosing that the encapsulation material is made of PDMS, which like all materials, inherently has a plurality of material properties), the plurality of material properties including:
a first material property that defines a bending radius of the encapsulation material such that the encapsulation material has a degree of flexibility that corresponds to the bending radius (see ¶¶ 0030, 0038, and 0057 stating that PDMS is flexible, its degree of flexibility corresponds to its inherent bending radius); and
a second material property that establishes a compatibility of the encapsulation material with the external environment (see ¶ 0030 describing how PDMS is waterproof, hydrophobic, biocompatible, and does not decompose under high heat or halogenation) such that the encapsulation material prevents an adverse impact on the electronic system due to the external environment (see ¶¶ 0042-0043 describing how second stretchable layer 332 covers and protects power source 314 and computing device 318 from damage from the environment).
Hussain does not explicitly state that the external environment has an environmental
condition that satisfies an environment threshold indicating whether the external environment is an extreme environment.
However, external environments all inherently possess various environmental conditions. And most, if not all, environmental conditions can be quantified in some way and said to satisfy some threshold.
Additionally, Hussain discloses a temperature sensor and a temperature sensing unit, a pressure sensor and a pressure sensing unit, and a salinity sensor and a salinity sensing unit. Hussain further discloses a memory configured to store the sensor data and a Bluetooth transmitter configured to send the sensor data to an external device (see ¶ 0010). Given that Hussain’s system includes the components necessary to determine whether an extreme environment exists (at least in terms of temperature, pressure, and salinity), it would have been obvious to configure the system to indicate whether or not the external environment is an extreme environment. Doing so would be beneficial for the scientific study of various ecosystems.
Regarding claim 6, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hussain further teaches that the electronic system is configured to interact with the external environment by monitoring a parameter of the external environment using a sensor of the electronic system (see ¶ 0047 describing how temperature sensor 302, pressure sensor 304, and salinity sensor 306 are used to monitor temperature, pressure, and salinity of the external environment).
Regarding claim 7, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hussain further teaches that the electronic system is configured to interact with the external environment by performing an action with respect to an element included in the external environment (see ¶ 0058 stating that the system can stretch and contract in response to the movement of an animal’s body; see also ¶ 0047: collecting, storing, and transmitting temperature, pressure, and salinity data can also be considered actions performed in response to elements in the external environment).
Regarding claim 8, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hussain further teaches that the external environment includes at least one of:
a biological environment internal to a living or nonliving being;
an oceanic environment (see ¶ 0075 stating that the system is designed for oceanic environments);
a geothermal environment;
an outer space environment;
an arctic environment; or
a tropical environment.
Regarding claim 9, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
Hussain further teaches that the environment threshold defines an ambient temperature range that substantially includes -25 degrees Celsius as a first endpoint and 130 degrees Celsius as a second end point; and wherein the environmental condition is an ambient temperature that is within the ambient temperature range defined by the environment threshold (see Figs. 8A and 8F showing data from the system operating in temperatures that fall within the range of -25 degrees Celsius to 130 degrees Celsius).
Regarding claim 10, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hussain further teaches that the environment threshold defines a pressure range that substantially includes 0 torr as a first endpoint and 45600 torr as a second endpoint; and wherein the environmental condition is a pressure that is within the pressure range defined by the environment threshold (see Fig. 8B showing data from the system operating in pressures that fall within the range of 0 torr to 45600 torr; 1 dBar ≈ 75 torr).
Regarding claim 11, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hussain further teaches that the environment threshold defines a humidity range that substantially includes 20% as a first endpoint and 100% as a second endpoint; and wherein the environmental condition is a humidity that is within the humidity range defined by the environment threshold (see ¶ 0044 stating that the system may transmit data when out of water, there is nothing disclosed in Hussain to suggest that the system would work only in air having a humidity below 20%).
Regarding claim 12, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hussain further teaches that the environment threshold defines a salinity range that substantially includes 9 parts per thousand (ppt) as a first endpoint and 36 ppt as a second endpoint; and wherein the environmental condition is a salinity level that is within the salinity range defined by the environment threshold (see Fig. 8C showing data from the system operating in salinities that fall within the range of 9 ppt to 36 ppt; 1 PSU ≈ 1 ppt).
Regarding claim 13, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hussain further teaches that the environment threshold defines a pH range that substantially includes 1 as a first endpoint and 14 as a second endpoint; and wherein the environmental condition is a pH within the pH range defined by the environment threshold (the system disclosed in Hussain is designed to operate in the ocean, ocean water’s pH falls well within this range).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019/183169 A1 (hereinafter “Kuo”) and US 2015/0210588 A1 (hereinafter “Chang”).
Regarding claim 2, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hussain does not explicitly disclose that the bending radius of the encapsulation material is substantially equal to 1 centimeter.
Kuo discloses encapsulating an electronic component in a glass package made of flexible ultra-thin glass layers (see ¶ 00029-00031). Kuo teaches that the ultra-thin glass layers can be made of any suitable glass having a thickness of no more than 200 µm (see ¶ 00033).
Chang discloses ultra-thin glass (see ¶ 0009 stating that the thickness of the glass layer may range from 25 µm to about 125 µm) having a bending radius substantially equal to 1 cm (see ¶ 0012 stating that the glass layer’s bend radius can range from 3 mm to 20 mm).
Kuo is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to use flexible ultra-thin glass as an encapsulation material. Kuo teaches that ultra-thin glass is an effective encapsulant that can be used to protect electronic components (see ¶ 00027). Chang discloses a specific ultra-thin glass, having a bending radius substantially equal to 1 cm, that was known at the time of the present invention. It would have been obvious to use the ultra-thin glass disclosed in Chang since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hussain does not explicitly disclose that the bending radius of the encapsulation material is substantially equal to 2 centimeters.
Kuo discloses encapsulating an electronic component in a glass package made of flexible ultra-thin glass layers (see ¶ 00029-00031). Kuo teaches that the ultra-thin glass layers can be made of any suitable glass having a thickness of no more than 200 µm (see ¶ 00033).
Chang discloses ultra-thin glass (see ¶ 0009 stating that the thickness of the glass layer may range from 25 µm to about 125 µm) having a bending radius substantially equal to 2 cm (see ¶ 0012 stating that the glass layer’s bend radius can range from 3 mm to 20 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to use flexible ultra-thin glass as an encapsulation material. Kuo teaches that ultra-thin glass is an effective encapsulant that can be used to protect electronic components (see ¶ 00027). Chang discloses a specific ultra-thin glass, having a bending radius substantially equal to 2 cm, that was known at the time of the present invention. It would have been obvious to use the ultra-thin glass disclosed in Chang since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hussain does not explicitly disclose that the bending radius of the encapsulation material is greater than or equal to 1 centimeter and less than or equal to 2 centimeters.
Kuo discloses encapsulating an electronic component in a glass package made of flexible ultra-thin glass layers (see ¶ 00029-00031). Kuo teaches that the ultra-thin glass layers can be made of any suitable glass having a thickness of no more than 200 µm (see ¶ 00033).
Chang discloses ultra-thin glass (see ¶ 0009 stating that the thickness of the glass layer may range from 25 µm to about 125 µm) having a bending radius greater than or equal to 1cm and less than or equal to 2 cm (see ¶ 0012 stating that the glass layer’s bend radius can range from 3 mm to 20 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to use flexible ultra-thin glass as an encapsulation material. Kuo teaches that ultra-thin glass is an effective encapsulant that can be used to protect electronic components (see ¶ 00027). Chang discloses a specific ultra-thin glass, having a bending radius greater than or equal to 1 cm and less than or equal to 2 cm, that was known at the time of the present invention. It would have been obvious to use the ultra-thin glass disclosed in Chang since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, Hussain teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hussain does not teach that the encapsulation material is glass.
Kuo discloses encapsulating an electronic component in a glass package made of flexible ultra-thin glass layers (see ¶ 00029-00031). Kuo teaches that the ultra-thin glass layers can be made of any suitable glass having a thickness of no more than 200 µm (see ¶ 00033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to use flexible ultra-thin glass as an encapsulation material. Kuo teaches that ultra-thin glass is an effective encapsulant that can be used to protect electronic components (see ¶ 00027).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hussain in view of Kuo and Chang.
Regarding claim 14, Hussain discloses an assembly, comprising:
an electronic system (300) including a plurality of electrical components (302, 304, 306, 314, and 318), the electronic system to be implemented within an external environment (see ¶ 0075 stating that the system is designed for oceanic environments) having an environmental condition that satisfies an extreme environment threshold (e.g. water and/or water pressure); and
an encapsulation material (310, 320, and 332) configured to enclose at least one electrical component of the plurality of electrical components (see ¶¶ 0009, 0011, 0031 and 0054; see also Fig. 3), wherein the encapsulation material has a plurality of material properties (see ¶ 0030 disclosing that the encapsulation material is made of PDMS, which like all materials, inherently has a plurality of material properties), the plurality of material properties including:
a first material property that defines a bending radius of the encapsulation material such that the encapsulation material has a degree of flexibility that corresponds to the bending radius (see ¶¶ 0030, 0038, and 0057 stating that PDMS is flexible, its degree of flexibility corresponds to its inherent bending radius); and
a second material property that establishes a compatibility of the encapsulation material with the external environment (see ¶ 0030 describing how PDMS is waterproof, hydrophobic, biocompatible, and does not decompose under high heat or halogenation) such that the encapsulation material prevents the environmental condition from having an adverse impact on the at least one electrical component of the electronic system (see ¶¶ 0042-0043 describing how second stretchable layer 332 covers and protects power source 314 and computing device 318 from damage from the environment; PDMS is waterproof and thus protects the internal components from exposure to water).
Hussain does not explicitly disclose that the bending radius of the encapsulation material
is between approximately 1 centimeter and 2 centimeters.
Kuo discloses encapsulating an electronic component in a glass package made of flexible ultra-thin glass layers (see ¶ 00029-00031). Kuo teaches that the ultra-thin glass layers can be made of any suitable glass having a thickness of no more than 200 µm (see ¶ 00033).
Chang discloses ultra-thin glass (see ¶ 0009 stating that the thickness of the glass layer may range from 25 µm to about 125 µm) having a bending radius between approximately 1 cm and 2 cm (see ¶ 0012 stating that the glass layer’s bend radius can range from 3 mm to 20 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to use flexible ultra-thin glass as an encapsulation material. Kuo teaches that ultra-thin glass is an effective encapsulant that can be used to protect electronic components (see ¶ 00027). Chang discloses a specific ultra-thin glass, having a bending radius between approximately 1 cm and 2 cm, that was known at the time of the present invention. It would have been obvious to use the ultra-thin glass disclosed in Chang since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 15, Hussain in view of Kuo and Chang teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Hussain in view of Kuo and Chang further teaches that when the at least one electrical component of the electronic system is exposed to the environmental condition of the external environment without being enclosed by the encapsulation material, the environmental condition has an adverse impact on the at least one electrical component (if, e.g., Hussain’s computing device 318 were exposed to water, it would likely fail).
Regarding claim 16, Hussain in view of Kuo and Chang teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Hussain in view of Kuo and Chang further teaches that the encapsulation material is glass (see Kuo, ¶ 00029-00031; see Chang ¶ 0012).
Regarding claim 17, Hussain in view of Kuo and Chang teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Hussain in view of Kuo and Chang further teaches that the plurality of electrical components includes: a communication interface (integrated Bluetooth transceiver 318B); an electronic processor (PSoC 318A); a power circuit (power source 314); and at least one of a sensor (302, 304, and 306) or an actuator; and wherein the electronic processor is configured to control the at least one of the sensor or the actuator to interact with the external environment (see ¶ 0047 describing how temperature sensor 302, pressure sensor 304, and salinity sensor 306 are controlled by their corresponding sensing units hosted in the PSoC microcontroller).
Hussain does not explicitly state that each electrical component of the plurality of electrical components is rigid. Hussain does disclose that the communication interface, electronic processor, and power circuit may be rigid (see ¶ 0044 stating that computing device 318 may include a PSoC 318A with an integrated Bluetooth transceiver 318B; see ¶ 0042 stating that power source 314 may be a coin cell battery), but does not explicitly disclose rigid sensors.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize rigid sensors since applicant has not disclosed that this solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well whether or not the sensors are rigid.
Regarding claim 18, Hussain discloses an apparatus, comprising:
an electronic system (300) including a plurality of electrical components (314 and 318), wherein the electronic system to be implemented within an external environment (see ¶ 0075 stating that the system is designed for oceanic environments), wherein the external environment has an environmental condition that satisfies an environment threshold that classifies the external environment as an extreme environment, wherein the environmental condition includes at least one of:
a temperature that is within a temperature range defined by the environment threshold, the temperature range being -25 degrees Celsius to 130 degrees Celsius (see Figs. 8A and 8F showing data from the system operating in temperatures that fall within the range of -25 degrees Celsius to 130 degrees Celsius);
a pressure that is within a pressure range defined by the environment threshold, the pressure range being 0 torr to 45600 torr (see Fig. 8B showing data from the system operating in pressures that fall within the range of 0 torr to 45600 torr; 1 dBar ≈ 75 torr);
a humidity that is within a humidity range defined by the environment threshold, the humidity range being 20% to 100% (see ¶ 0044 stating that the system may transmit data when out of water, there is nothing disclosed in Hussain to suggest that the system would work only in air having a humidity below 20%);
a salinity level that within of a salinity range defined by the environment threshold, the salinity range being 9 parts per thousand (ppt) to 36 ppt (see Fig. 8C showing data from the system operating in salinities that fall within the range of 9 ppt to 36 ppt; 1 PSU ≈ 1 ppt); or
a pH within a pH range defined by the environment threshold, the pH range being 1 to 14 (the system disclosed in Hussain is designed to operate in the ocean, ocean water’s pH falls well within this range); and
an encapsulation material (310, 320, and 332) configured to enclose at least one electrical component of the plurality of electrical components (see ¶¶ 0009, 0011, 0031 and 0054; see also Fig. 3), and wherein the encapsulation material has a material property that is tolerant to the environmental condition of the external environment (see ¶ 0030 describing how PDMS is waterproof, hydrophobic, biocompatible, and does not decompose under high heat or halogenation) such that the encapsulation material prevents the environmental condition from having an adverse impact on the at least one electrical component of the electronic system (see ¶¶ 0042-0043 describing how second stretchable layer 332 covers and protects power source 314 and computing device 318 from damage from the environment; PDMS is waterproof and thus protects the internal components from exposure to water).
Hussain does not explicitly disclose that the encapsulation material has a bending radius
of approximately 1 centimeter or 2 centimeters.
Kuo discloses encapsulating an electronic component in a glass package made of flexible ultra-thin glass layers (see ¶ 00029-00031). Kuo teaches that the ultra-thin glass layers can be made of any suitable glass having a thickness of no more than 200 µm (see ¶ 00033).
Chang discloses ultra-thin glass (see ¶ 0009 stating that the thickness of the glass layer may range from 25 µm to about 125 µm) having a bending radius of approximately 1 cm or 2 cm (see ¶ 0012 stating that the glass layer’s bend radius can range from 3 mm to 20 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to use flexible ultra-thin glass as an encapsulation material. Kuo teaches that ultra-thin glass is an effective encapsulant that can be used to protect electronic components (see ¶ 00027). Chang discloses a specific ultra-thin glass, having a bending radius of approximately 1 cm or 2 cm, that was known at the time of the present invention. It would have been obvious to use the ultra-thin glass disclosed in Chang since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 19, Hussain in view of Kuo and Chang teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Hussain in view of Kuo and Chang further teaches that the encapsulation material is glass (see Kuo, ¶ 00029-00031; see Chang ¶ 0012).
Regarding claim 20, Hussain in view of Kuo and Chang teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Hussain in view of Kuo and Chang further teaches that each electrical component of the plurality of electrical components is rigid (see ¶ 0042 stating that power source 314 may be a coin cell battery; see ¶ 0044 stating that computing device 318 may include a PSoC) and is electrically coupled to another electrical component of the plurality of electrical components (see ¶¶ 0042-0043 stating that both power source 314 and computing device 318 are electrically connected to second metallic layer 330); and wherein, when deployed within the external environment, the encapsulation material causes the apparatus to be flexible (see ¶ 0058 stating that the system can stretch and contract in response to the movement of an animal’s body).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights