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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/4/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-25 are pending in the application. Claims 5 and 17 are cancelled.
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 13-16 and 18-23 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the at least one applied pressure" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets “the at least one applied pressure” as “a fluid pressure in the surgical cassette”.
Claims 14-16 and 18-23 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on rejected claim 13.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-16, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfield (US 2011/0232388 A1) in view of Gao et al. (US 2020/0353133 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Butterfield discloses a pressure measurement system (magnetic-type noncontact pressure sensing system 700, see Fig. 7) for use with a surgical system (see par. [0026] and [0045], magnetic-type noncontact pressure sensing system 700 is intended to be used within a fluid supply system), the pressure measurement system (magnetic-type noncontact pressure sensing system 700) comprising:
a pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) in a surgical cassette (cassette 102C), the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) in communication with at least one applied pressure within the surgical cassette (cassette 102C) (see par. [0033], [0045], and [0048], changes in fluid pressure in cassette 102C moves the movable element 172), wherein the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) comprises a one-piece metallic diaphragm (see par. [0034]-[0035]) having a hat-shaped profile (see Figs. 5 and 7, diaphragm structure appears to be “hat-shaped”) including a mounting portion (surfaces of side wall 178 directly contacting cassette body 180 and coupler 500, see Figs. 5 and 7, par. [0031], [0033], [0036]-[0037]), a top portion (top surface of diaphragm structure 170) substantially parallel to the mounting portion (surfaces of side wall 178 directly contacting cassette body 180 and coupler 500) and configured to deflect based on the at least one applied pressure (see Figs. 5 and 7, par. [0031]-[0033], [0035]. [0037]), and a side portion (external vertical surface of side wall 178, see Figs. 5 and 7, par. [0031]) elevating the top portion (top surface of diaphragm structure 170) from the mounting portion (surfaces of side wall 178 directly contacting cassette body 180 and coupler 500) (see Figs. 5 and 7, par. [0031] and [0034]-[0036]), wherein the top portion (top surface of diaphragm structure 170) includes at least one outer radial corrugation (see Fig. 5, diaphragm 176 has an S-shape which includes two U-shaped portions at its connection points to side wall 178 and movable element 172 and an N- shaped portion in between, forming 3 corrugations) (see Fig. 7, par. [0034]-[0035], the movable element 172, the deformable element 176, and the side wall 178 can be formed of a metal and can be formed from a single mold) configured to improve an operational lifespan of the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) (see Fig. 7, par. [0034], deformable element 176 is flexible while movable element 172 is non-flexible to preserve the structural integrity of the device); and
at least one magnetic field sensor (magnetic field sensor 104C) in a surgical console (sensor base 101C coupled to pump body 110 together forms a surgical console, see par. [0027] and [0045]) adapted to receive the surgical cassette (cassette 102C) (see Fig. 7), the at least one magnetic field sensor (magnetic field sensor 104C) configured to measure a magnetic field (strength of local magnetic field 704, see par. [0047]-[0048]) when the surgical cassette (cassette 102C) is present in the surgical console (sensor base 101C coupled to pump body 110 together forms a surgical console, see par. [0027] and [0045]) (see Fig. 7, par. [0046]-[0048]);
wherein the at least one magnetic field sensor (magnetic field sensor 104C) produces a signal indicative of a distance between the at least one magnetic field sensor (magnetic field sensor 104C) and the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) based on interaction of the magnetic field (see par. [0046]-[0048]).
While Butterfield teaches that the magnetic field sensor 104C can be any device that is capable of providing an indication of a magnetic field (see par. [0046]), Butterfield fails to explicitly state that the at least one magnetic field sensor is at least one eddy current sensor configured to generate a first magnetic field from an alternating current and induce an opposing magnetic field in the metallic diaphragm; and wherein the at least one eddy current sensor produces a signal indicative of a distance between the at least one eddy current sensor and the pressure sensitive disc based on interaction of the first magnetic field and the opposing magnetic field.
Gao teaches a pressure measurement system (see Figs. 1-6) comprising at least one magnetic field sensor which is at least one eddy current sensor (pressure sensor 600, see par. [0041]) configured to generate a first magnetic field (magnetic field 710) from an alternating current (see par. [0041]) and induce an opposing magnetic field (magnetic fields 720/730) in the metallic diaphragm (diaphragm 402, see par. [0038]) (see Figs. 5-6, par. [0041]); wherein the at least one eddy current sensor (pressure sensor 600) produces a signal indicative of a distance between the at least one eddy current sensor (pressure sensor 600) and the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm 402) based on interaction of the first magnetic field (magnetic field 710) and the opposing magnetic field (magnetic fields 720/730) (see Figs. 5-6, par. [0041]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure measurement system of Butterfield to include that the at least one magnetic field sensor is at least one eddy current sensor configured to generate a first magnetic field from an alternating current and induce an opposing magnetic field in the metallic diaphragm; and wherein the at least one eddy current sensor produces a signal indicative of a distance between the at least one eddy current sensor and the pressure sensitive disc based on interaction of the first magnetic field and the opposing magnetic field; as taught by Gao, because Butterfield teaches that the magnetic field sensor 104C can be any device that is capable of providing an indication of a magnetic field (see Butterfield par. [0046]) and because Gao teaches that an eddy current sensor is an example of such a magnetic field sensor that determines a pressure within a surgical system in a non-contact, non-invasive manner with a fast response and a simple implementation (see Gao par. [0045]).
PNG
media_image1.png
624
943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. Butterfield further teaches wherein the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) is made of a non-ferrous material (see par. [0035], at least a portion of the structure of 170 can be formed of polycarbonate, which is non-ferrous).
Regarding claim 4, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. However, modified Butterfield fails to state wherein the pressure sensitive disc comprises at least one metal selected from the group consisting of: steel, stainless steel, and aluminum.
Gao teaches a pressure measurement system (see Figs. 1-6) wherein the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm 402) comprises at least one metal consisting of stainless steel (see par. [0038]) (note: only one of "steel", "stainless steel", or "aluminum" is required by the claim since this limitation is written in the alternative).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure measurement system of modified Butterfield to include that the pressure sensitive disc comprises stainless steel, as taught by Gao, because Gao teaches that stainless steel is a suitable metallic material for a pressure sensitive disc of a pressure measurement system (see Gao par. [0038]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. Butterfield further teaches wherein the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) comprises at least two planar portions (movable element 172 and side wall 178 are both shown as having planar/flat portions).
Regarding claim 7, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. Gao further teaches wherein the opposing magnetic field (magnetic fields 720/730) is indicative of an eddy current (see Figs. 5-6, par. [0041], see previous modifications of Butterfield in view of Gao in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. Butterfield further teaches wherein the at least one outer radial corrugation (see Fig. 5, diaphragm 176 has an S-shape which includes two U-shaped portions at its connection points to side wall 178 and movable element 172 and an N-shaped portion in between, forming 3 corrugations) comprises two outer radial corrugations (see Fig. 5, diaphragm 176 has an S-shape which includes two U-shaped portions at its connection points to side wall 178 and movable element 172 and an N-shaped portion in between, forming 3 corrugations) configured to further improve the operational lifespan of the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) (see Figs. 5 and 7, par. [0033]-[0034], diaphragm 176 has an S-shape which includes two U-shaped portions at its connection points to side wall 178 and movable element 172 and an N-shaped portion in between, forming 3 corrugations, and deformable element 176 is flexible while movable element 172 is non-flexible to preserve the structural integrity of the device).
Regarding claim 9, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. However, modified Butterfield fails to state wherein the pressure sensitive disc is at least 0.002 inches thick.
Gao teaches a pressure measurement system (see Figs. 1-6) wherein the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm 402) is at least 0.002 inches thick (see par. [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure measurement system of modified Butterfield to include that the pressure sensitive disc is at least 0.002 inches thick, as taught by Gao, because Gao teaches that this is a suitable thickness for a deformable pressure sensitive disc of a pressure measurement system (see Gao par. [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. However, modified Butterfield fails to explicitly state wherein the at least one eddy current sensor measures a magnetic field at a range of less than 2.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the system of modified Butterfield to include that the at least one eddy current sensor measures a magnetic field at a range of less than 2.0 mm since it has been 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" Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the system of modified Butterfield would not operate differently with the claimed range and since the eddy current sensor must be located close enough to a magnetic field in order to detect the magnetic field, the system would function appropriately having the claimed range. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the range is selected for the instant application to be within the claimed values, but not explaining why exactly that specific value is necessary (see Specification par. [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. Butterfield further teaches wherein at least a portion of the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) positively deflects (see par. [0048], increasing fluid pressure causes positive, or +Z, deflection).
However, modified Butterfield fails to explicitly state wherein at least a portion of the pressure sensitive disc positively deflects less than 0.8 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the system of modified Butterfield to include that at least a portion of the pressure sensitive disc positively deflects less than 0.8 mm since it has been 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" Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the system of modified Butterfield would not operate differently with the claimed range and since the pressure sensitive disc can only positively deflect a certain amount before breaking, the system would function appropriately having the claimed range. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the range is selected for the instant application to be within the claimed values, but not explaining why exactly that specific value is necessary (see Specification par. [0078]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. Butterfield further teaches wherein at least a portion of the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) negatively deflects (see par. [0048], decreasing fluid pressure causes negative, or -z, deflection).
However, modified Butterfield fails to explicitly state wherein at least a portion of the pressure sensitive disc negatively deflects less than 0.8 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the system of modified Butterfield to include that at least a portion of the pressure sensitive disc negatively deflects less than 0.8 mm since it has been 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" Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the system of modified Butterfield would not operate differently with the claimed range and since the pressure sensitive disc can only negatively deflect a certain amount before breaking, the system would function appropriately having the claimed range. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the range is selected for the instant application to be within the claimed values, but not explaining why exactly that specific value is necessary (see Specification par. [0078]).
Regarding claim 13, Butterfield discloses a method for determining a pressure (via a magnetic-type noncontact pressure sensing system 700, Fig. 7, par. [0045]-[0048]), the method comprising:
providing a first magnetic field (magnetic field 702) to a metallic body (diaphragm structure 170 can be made of metal, see par. [0035]) disposed in a surgical cassette (cassette 102C) to induce at least one second magnetic field (local magnetic field 704) (see Fig. 7, par. [0045]-[0048]), wherein the metallic body (diaphragm structure 170) comprises a one-piece pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) having a hat-shaped profile (see Figs. 5 and 7, diaphragm structure appears to be “hat-shaped”), including a mounting portion (surfaces of side wall 178 directly contacting cassette body 180 and coupler 500, see Figs. 5 and 7, par. [0031], [0033], [0036]-[0037]), a top portion (top surface of diaphragm structure 170) substantially parallel to the mounting portion (surfaces of side wall 178 directly contacting cassette body 180 and coupler 500) and configured to deflect based on the at least one applied pressure (see Figs. 5 and 7, par. [0031]-[0033], [0035]. [0037]), and a side portion (external vertical surface of side wall 178, see Figs. 5 and 7, par. [0031]) elevating the top portion (top surface of diaphragm structure 170) from the mounting portion (surfaces of side wall 178 directly contacting cassette body 180 and coupler 500) (see Figs. 5 and 7, par. [0031] and [0034]-[0036]), wherein the top portion (top surface of diaphragm structure 170) is configured with at least one outer radial corrugation (see Fig. 5, diaphragm 176 has an S-shape which includes two U-shaped portions at its connection points to side wall 178 and movable element 172 and an N-shaped portion in between, forming 3 corrugations) (see Fig. 7, par. [0034]-[0035], the movable element 172, the deformable element 176, and the side wall 178 can be formed of a metal and can be formed from a single mold) to improve an operational lifespan of the metallic body (diaphragm structure 170) (see Fig. 7, par. [0034], deformable element 176 is flexible while movable element 172 is non-flexible to preserve the structural integrity of the device);
sensing the at least one second magnetic field (local magnetic field 704) using at least one sensor (magnetic field sensor 104C) disposed in a surgical console (sensor base 101C coupled to pump body 110 together forms a surgical console, see par. [0027] and [0045]) adapted to receive the surgical cassette (cassette 102C), when the surgical cassette (cassette 102C) is present in the surgical console (sensor base 101C coupled to pump body 110 together forms a surgical console, see par. [0027] and [0045]) (see Fig. 7, par. [0046]-[0048]); and
determining a distance between the metallic body (diaphragm structure 170) and the at least one sensor (magnetic field sensor 104C) based on the at least one second magnetic field (local magnetic field 704), wherein the determined distance is indicative of the fluid pressure in the surgical cassette (cassette 102C) (see Figs. 7-8, par. [0046]-[0049]).
However, Butterfield fails to state providing the first magnetic field from alternating current to the metallic body disposed in the surgical cassette to induce the at least one second magnetic field in the metallic body.
Gao teaches a method for determining a pressure (see Figs. 1-6, par. [0041]- [0043]) comprising providing a first magnetic field (magnetic field 710) from alternating current to the metallic body (diaphragm 402, par. [0038]) disposed in the surgical cassette (cassette 314) to induce the at least one second magnetic field (magnetic fields 720/730) in the metallic body (diaphragm 402) (see Figs. 5-6, par. [0038] and [0041]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Butterfield to include providing the first magnetic field from alternating current to the metallic body disposed in the surgical cassette to induce the at least one second magnetic field in the metallic body, as taught by Gao, because Butterfield teaches that the method can include any type of magnetic field sensing that is capable of providing an indication of a magnetic field (see Butterfield par. [0046]) and because Gao teaches that providing an alternating current to the metallic body is an example of such a magnetic field sensing method for determining a pressure in a non-contact, non- invasive manner with a fast response and a simple implementation (see Gao par. [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Butterfield teaches the method of claim 13 substantially as claimed. Gao further teaches wherein the at least one second magnetic field (magnetic fields 720/730) is substantially contained in the metallic body (diaphragm 402) (see Figs. 5-6, par. [0041], see previous modifications of Butterfield in view of Gao in the rejection of claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 15, modified Butterfield teaches the method of claim 13 substantially as claimed. Butterfield further teaches wherein the metallic body (diaphragm structure 170 can be made of metal, see par. [0035]) moves based on the fluid pressure in the surgical cassette (cassette 102C) (see par. [0033], [0035], [0045], and [0048]-[0049], changes in fluid pressure in cassette 102C moves the movable element 172).
Regarding claim 16, modified Butterfield teaches the method of claim 13 substantially as claimed. However, modified Butterfield fails to state wherein the metallic body comprises at least one metal selected from the group consisting of: steel, stainless steel, and aluminum.
Gao teaches a method for determining a pressure (see Figs. 1-6) wherein the metallic body (diaphragm 402) comprises at least one metal consisting of stainless steel (see par. [0038]) (note: only one of "steel", "stainless steel", or "aluminum" is required by the claim since this limitation is written in the alternative).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Butterfield to include that the metallic body comprises stainless steel, as taught by Gao, because Gao teaches that stainless steel is a suitable metallic material for a metallic body of a pressure measurement method (see Gao par. [0038]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Butterfield teaches the method of claim 13 substantially as claimed. Butterfield further teaches wherein the at least one outer radial corrugation (see Fig. 5, diaphragm 176 has an S-shape which includes two U-shaped portions at its connection points to side wall 178 and movable element 172 and an N-shaped portion in between, forming 3 corrugations) comprises two outer radial corrugations (see Fig. 5, diaphragm 176 has an S-shape which includes two U-shaped portions at its connection points to side wall 178 and movable element 172 and an N- shaped portion in between, forming 3 corrugations) configured to further improve the operational lifespan of the metallic body (diaphragm structure 170) (see Figs. 5 and 7, par. [0033]-[0034], diaphragm 176 has an S-shape which includes two U-shaped portions at its connection points to side wall 178 and movable element 172 and an N- shaped portion in between, forming 3 corrugations, and deformable element 176 is flexible while movable element 172 is non-flexible to preserve the structural integrity of the device).
Regarding claim 19, modified Butterfield teaches the method of claim 13 substantially as claimed. Gao further teaches wherein the at least one second magnetic field (magnetic fields 720/730) is indicative of an eddy current (see Figs. 5-6, par. [0041], see previous modifications of Butterfield in view of Gao in the rejection of claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 20, modified Butterfield teaches the method of claim 13 substantially as claimed. However, modified Butterfield fails to state wherein the metallic body is at least 0.002 inches thick.
Gao teaches a method for determining a pressure (see Figs. 1-6) wherein the metallic body (diaphragm 402) is at least 0.002 inches thick (see par. [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Butterfield to include that the metallic body is at least 0.002 inches thick, as taught by Gao, because Gao teaches that this is a suitable thickness for a deformable metallic body of a pressure measurement method (see Gao par. [0038]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Butterfield teaches the method of claim 13 substantially as claimed. However, modified Butterfield fails to explicitly state wherein the at least one sensor measures a magnetic field at a range of less than 2.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the method of modified Butterfield to include that the at least one sensor measures a magnetic field at a range of less than 2.0 mm since it has been 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" Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the method of modified Butterfield would not operate differently with the claimed range and since the sensor must be located close enough to a magnetic field in order to detect the magnetic field, the method would function appropriately having the claimed range. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the range is selected for the instant application to be within the claimed values, but not explaining why exactly that specific value is necessary (see Specification par. [0078]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Butterfield teaches the method of claim 13 substantially as claimed. Butterfield further teaches wherein at least a portion of the metallic body (diaphragm structure 170 can be made of metal, see par. [0035]) positively deflects in response to pressure (see par. [0048], increasing fluid pressure causes positive, or +Z, deflection).
However, modified Butterfield fails to explicitly state wherein at least a portion of the metallic body positively deflects less than 0.8 mm in response to at least one unit of pressure greater than an atmospheric pressure.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the method of modified Butterfield to include that at least a portion of the metallic body positively deflects less than 0.8 mm in response to at least one unit of pressure greater than an atmospheric pressure since it has been 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" Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the method of modified Butterfield would not operate differently with the claimed range and since the metallic body can only positively deflect a certain amount before breaking, the method would function appropriately having the claimed range. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the range is selected for the instant application to be within the claimed values, but not explaining why exactly that specific value is necessary (see Specification par. [0078]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Butterfield teaches the method of claim 13 substantially as claimed. Butterfield further teaches wherein at least a portion of the metallic body (diaphragm structure 170 can be made of metal, see par. [0035]) negatively deflects in response to pressure (see par. [0048], decreasing fluid pressure causes negative, or -z, deflection).
However, modified Butterfield fails to explicitly state wherein at least a portion of the metallic body negatively deflects less than 0.8 mm in response to at least one unit of pressure less than an atmospheric pressure.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the method of modified Butterfield to include that at least a portion of the metallic body negatively deflects less than 0.8 mm in response to at least one unit of pressure less than an atmospheric pressure since it has been 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" Gardner V. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the method of modified Butterfield would not operate differently with the claimed range and since the metallic body can only negatively deflect a certain amount before breaking, the method would function appropriately having the claimed range. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the range is selected for the instant application to be within the claimed values, but not explaining why exactly that specific value is necessary (see Specification par. [0078]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. Butterfield further teaches wherein the at least one outer radial corrugation (see Fig. 5, diaphragm 176 has an S-shape which includes two U-shaped portions at its connection points to side wall 178 and movable element 172 and an N-shaped portion in between, forming 3 corrugations) comprises three outer radial corrugations (see Fig. 5, diaphragm 176 has an S-shape which includes two U-shaped portions at its connection points to side wall 178 and movable element 172 and an N-shaped portion in between, forming 3 corrugations) configured to improve a linear response of the pressure sensitive disc (diaphragm structure 170) over a desired pressure range (see Fig. 7, par. [0034], deformable element 176 is flexible while movable element 172 is non-flexible to result in a more controlled, linear, and repeatable change in displacement per unit change in pressure).
Regarding claim 25, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 24 substantially as claimed. Modified Butterfield further teaches wherein only an innermost radial corrugation of the three outer radial corrugations (see Butterfield Fig. 5, diaphragm 176 has an S-shape which includes two U-shaped portions at its connection points to side wall 178 and movable element 172 and an N-shaped portion in between, forming 3 corrugations) is in a same area as the opposing magnetic field (see Gao Fig. 6, the opposing magnetic fields 720/730 are in the same area as the metallic diaphragm 402. Since the diaphragm 176 of Butterfield is in the same area as the movable element 172 (see Butterfield Fig. 6), this means the innermost corrugation of diaphragm 176 would be in the same area as the opposing magnetic field; see previous modifications in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfield (US 2011/0232388 A1) in view of Gao et al. (US 2020/0353133 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Haas et al. (WO 2014/005769 A2, see translated version previously filed on 11/22/2022).
Regarding claim 2, modified Butterfield teaches the pressure measurement system of claim 1 substantially as claimed. Butterfield further teaches wherein the signal comprises a strength of a magnetic field (see par. [0048]; note: magnetic field strength is measured in units of current per meter). While magnetic field strength (i.e. current per meter) and voltage (i.e. current times resistance) are proportional, modified Butterfield fails to explicitly state wherein the signal comprises a voltage.
Haas teaches a pressure measurement system (see Fig. 1, page 5 of translated Haas, "Fig. 1 shows an eddy current sensor 100 for detecting force, pressure, or acceleration") wherein the signal comprises a voltage (see page 7 of translated Haas, "Surface 104 forms eddy currents which in turn form a field. This field counteracts the field of coil 102, resulting in a change in coil impedance. The impedance can be measured, for example, as a change in the amplitude and the phase position of current and voltage in the coil 102").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure measurement system of modified Butterfield to include wherein the signal comprises a voltage, as taught by Haas, because Haas teaches that a change in voltage corresponds to a pressure measurement for a deformable pressure sensor (see pages 6-7 of translated Haas, "Surface 104 forms eddy currents which in turn form a field. This field counteracts the field of coil 102, resulting in a change in coil impedance. The impedance can be measured, for example, as a change in the amplitude and the phase position of current and voltage in the coil 102" and "the force [pressure] is determined using the change [in voltage]").
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that Gao’s diaphragm 402/404 is a thin metallic material and does not include a radial corrugation and that Butterfield’s deformable element 176 is a polycarbonate/thermoplastic elastomer, and therefore Butterfield and Gao fail to teach the pressure sensitive disc as claimed. This argument is not found to be persuasive. Butterfield teaches, in par. [0035], that “the movable element 172, the deformable element 176, and the side wall 178 are formed with a same material…in a single mold”. Further, par. [0035] of Butterfield teaches “the movable disk 172 is made of a metal”. Therefore, Butterfield teaches a one-piece diaphragm (172+176+178) made of a single material which can at least partially be metallic. The Examiner notes that the limitation “a one-piece metallic diaphragm” does not require the diaphragm to be entirely made of metal. Further, the Gao reference is relied upon by the Examiner to modify the type of sensor, not the structure of the pressure sensitive disc, of Butterfield. The Examiner interprets that the combination of Butterfield in view of Gao still teaches each and every one of the amended limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVERY SMALE whose telephone number is (571)270-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8-4 ET.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/AVERY SMALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights