DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments received 02/27/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-9 as set forth below in this Office Action.
In an intention to expedite the prosecution, the Examiner contacted the Applicant’s representative, Attorney George Howarah, on 06/07/2026 (via email) and 06/09/2026 (left voice message) and proposed a tentative Examiner’s amendment to place the application in condition for allowance. The Applicant’s representative, however, failed to respond to the Examiner’s effort.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-9 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.
In claim 1, the limitation: “wherein the second cover (e.g., 110) comprises a first surface, a second surface opposite of the first surface of the second cover, and a thorough opening (e.g., 111) into the cavity, wherein a first portion of the first surface of the first cover (emphasis added) defines the cavity, wherein the thorough opening extends through the first portion of the second cover, and wherein the second surface defines the exterior of the sensor” is not supported by the spec and/or drawings. It appears it should be “a first portion of the first surface of the second cover defines the cavity, wherein the thorough opening extends through said first portion of the second cover, and wherein the second surface of the second cover defines the exterior of the sensor”.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 10-20 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 10-15 is the inclusion of the limitations: a cavity formed by the substrate, the first portion of the second surface first cover, and a portion of the first surface of the second cover, wherein the through opening of the second cover extends into the cavity, and wherein the cavity is configured to receive a gas; a resistance sensor element arranged in the cavity, wherein the cavity comprises a void isolating the resistance sensor element completely from each of the first cover, the second cover, and the substrate; an integrated circuit configured to excite the resistance sensor element with an input signal; a measuring circuit configured to determine an output signal of the resistance sensor element; and one or more processors configured to: determine a first parameter of a transfer function based on the input signal and the output signal; determine a second parameter of the transfer function based on the input signal and the output signal; check a plausibility of the first parameter based on the second parameter; and output an error signal when a lack of the plausibility of the first parameter is determined. It is these limitations found in each of the claims, in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in independent claim 10, that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes claims 10-15 distinguish over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 16-20 is the inclusion of the limitations: wherein the cavity is formed by a first cover, a substrate, and a second cover, wherein the first cover comprises a first surface, defining an exterior of the sensor, and a second surface opposite of the first surface, wherein the second surface of the first cover comprises a first portion and a second portion below the first portion, wherein the second cover comprises a thorough opening into the cavity, wherein the substrate comprises a first surface, residing directly on the second portion of the second surface of the first cover, and a second surface, opposite of the first surface of the substrate, residing directly on a surface of the second cover, wherein the cavity is formed through an entirety of a substrate and is defined by the first portion of the second surface of the first cover, and wherein the cavity comprises a void isolating the resistance sensor element completely from each of the first cover, the substrate, and the second cover; measuring an output signal of the resistance sensor element; determining a first parameter of a transfer function based on the input signal and the output signal; determining a second parameter of the transfer function based on the input signal and the output signal, wherein each of the first parameter and the second parameter comprises: a change in a resistance value, or a time constant, wherein the first parameter is different from the second parameter; checking a plausibility of the first parameter based on the second parameter; and outputting an error signal when a lack of the plausibility of the first parameter is determined. It is these limitations found in each of the claims, in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in independent claim 16, that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes claims 16-20 distinguish over the prior art.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights