DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This final office action is in response to the amendments filled on 08/20/2025. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8 are amended. Claim 9 is newly added. Claims 2 and 5 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-9 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 8 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, which recites “placed sufficiently distant” is considered indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Dependent claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent deficiencies.
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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0110424 (“Wolf”), and further in view of US 2023/0124216 (“Miyanohara”).
Wolf discloses a capacitance sensor (see at least [0003], where “The device also comprises a controller connected to the sensor, which controller detects a change in a capacitance of the sensor electrode and a provides a control signal”) comprising:
a detection circuit including a detection electrode operable to generate an electric field, wherein the detection circuit is configured to output a first sensed value representing a capacitance created between the detection electrode and an object that is positioned in the electric field (see at least [0010], [0014] and [0064], where electric fields are generated and an object is detected based on the change in capacitance due to the change in the generated electric fields);
a reference electrode provided in the electric field to face the detection electrode so that the detection sensor outputs a second sensed value representing a capacitance created by ambient air between the reference electrode and the detection electrode, wherein the reference electrode is coupled to or decoupled from a reference potential by operation of a switch (see at least fig 1, where 15 is reference sensor electrode, 3 is sensor electrode and 9 is capacitor. Also, there is a gap between 3 and 15. The sensor electrode and reference electrode can be coupled. So, there is a switch. Since the claim limitation mention “coupled to or decoupled” one limitation citation will satisfy the rejection. See also [0033]);
a switcher configured to to thereby confine the electric field from the detection electrode within between the detection electrode and the reference electrode so that the reference electrode cooperates with the detection electrode to detect the second sensed value (see at least fig 1, where 3 and 15 are coupled); and
a corrector configured to use the second sensed value to remove ambient interferences from the first sensed value (first sensed value is interpreted as capacitance created between detection electrode and object in presence of reference electrode. Second sensed value is interpreted as capacitance created between detection electrode and reference electrode when no object. see at least [0038], where “the sensor electrode 3 and the reference sensor electrode 15 are designed identically to make it easier to compare the measurement results detected by them.”; see also [0045]).
Wolf does not disclose the following limitations:
a switcher configured to open and close the switch to transition between a first state in which the reference electrode is decoupled from the reference potential and placed in a floating state to allow the electric field from the detection electrode to pass through the reference electrode so that the reference electrode does not interfere with detection of the first sensed value by the detection electrode.
However, Miyanohara discloses a system wherein a switcher configured to open and close the switch to transition between a first state in which the reference electrode is decoupled from the reference potential and placed in a floating state to allow the electric field from the detection electrode to pass through the reference electrode so that the reference electrode does not interfere with detection of the first sensed value by the detection electrode (see at least [0018], where “a cathode reset switch that opens or closes a path between the cathode and the reference potential”; see also [0261], where “a cathode reset switch that opens or closes a path between the cathode and the reference potential”; see also [0019], [0159] and fig 26).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wolf to incorporate the teachings of Miyanohara by including the above feature for providing safe detection by cutting off/on power based on the situation.
Regarding claim 3, Miyanohara further discloses a system wherein the first sensed value is measured by the detection circuit when th switch is in the first state (see at least [0261] and fig 26), and
Wolf further discloses a system wherein the second sensed value is measured by the detection circuit when th switch is in the second state (see at least fig 1, where 3 and 15 are coupled).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0110424 (“Wolf”), and in view of US 2023/0124216 (“Miyanohara”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0143522 (“Miyazawa”).
Regarding claim 7, Wolf, in view of Miyanohara, does not disclose claim 7. However, Miyazawa discloses a robot system comprising: a base (see at least fig 1, where 110 base);
a plurality of arms provided to the base (see at least [0073], where “the robot body section 1 including the base 110 and the robot arm 10 provided turnably with respect to the base 110 and including the plurality of arms 11 to 16”); and
the capacitance sensor according to a plurality of arms provided to the base (see at least [0073], where “The proximity sensors 30 include the electrode sections 310 configured to output signals according to a change in capacitance involved in the contact”; see also fig 1, where 30 capacitance sensor); and
the capacitance sensor according to wherein the detection electrode and the reference electrode are provided in one or more of the plurality of arms (see at least [0073]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wolf in view of Miyanohara to incorporate the teachings of Miyazawa by including the above feature for safe robot control.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0110424 (“Wolf”), and in view of US 2023/0124216 (“Miyanohara”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0209441 (“Mazzeo”).
Regarding claim 9, Wolf, in view of Miyanohara does not disclose claim 9. However, Mazzeo discloses a capacitance sensor wherein the detection circuit includes a variable capacitor configured to increase a capacitance thereof when the detection circuit measures the second sensed value and decrease the capacitance thereof when the detection circuit measures the first sensed value (see at least [0018] and [0022-23]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wolf in view of Miyanohara to incorporate the teachings of Mazzeo by including the above feature for providing real time object monitoring based on capacitance value changes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 3, 4 and 6-9 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 5712703976. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would 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.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights