DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 20 May 2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 5 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 has/have been canceled. Claim(s) 5 is/are pending.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2019/0183356 A1 (previously cited, Miyagawa) in view of US 2003/0008156 A1 (previously cited, Pocius), US 2014/0192500 A1 (previously cited, Yeong) and US 3,911,475 A (Szedon).
Regarding claim 5, Miyagawa discloses/suggests a method for manufacturing a living body sensor (pressure sensor 11) located in an internal space (internal space 34S) of a distal end portion of a guide wire main body having the distal end portion having the internal space (e.g., Fig. 3), the living body sensor comprising a terminal (terminal 18), a conductive wire (conductive wire 15) exposed in a surface facing a distal end of the sensor (Fig. 4, conductive wire body 15a exposed at a distal end of the conductive wire 15, as described in ¶ [0145]; etc.), a solder connecting the terminal to the distal end portion of the conductive wire (connection portion 26 formed between conductive wire body 15a and distal electroconductive layer 24 of terminal 18, ¶ [0145] where connection portion 26 is solder; and/or ¶¶ [0146]-0147] coating member 16, which may comprise solder, covering conductive wire body 15a and connection portion 26), and a diaphragm exposed in the surface (diaphragm 13), the method comprising applying an insulation coating to at least the terminal, the exposed conductive wire, and the solder in such a manner that the diaphragm is not hindered (e.g., ¶ [0175] waterproofing and insulation coating is performed to the entire or a part of the outer surface of the body of sensor 12 to such an extent that the movement of the diaphragm 13 of the sensor body 12 is not hindered).
Miyagawa does not expressly disclose the insulation coating is not applied/disposed on the diaphragm. However, as noted above, Miyagawa discloses the insulation coating may not cover the entire outer surface of the sensor, and discloses said coating should not hinder movement of the diaphragm (e.g., ¶ [0175]), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miyagawa with applying the insulation coating in such a manner that said coating is not on the diaphragm in order to ensure movement of the diaphragm is not hindered by said coating, particularly for embodiments in which the diaphragm material is itself insulating (e.g., polyurethane, rubber, etc.).
Miyagawa as modified does not disclose the step(s) by which the insulating coating is applied.
Pocius discloses a variety of coating methods for applying protective, insulating coatings to conductive components of a device are known/exist, and one such method, electrodeposition, enables selective deposition only on conductive portions (¶¶ [0004]-[0006]), wherein said method comprises:
an electrodeposition step of electrodepositing fine particles of a coating liquid onto conductive components of a device by immersing the device in the coating liquid and applying a potential to the conductive components of the device (e.g., ¶¶ [0071]-[0072] electrophoretic coating was carried out using a power supply operating at 20 volts, with the cathode of the cell comprising the conductive copper traces of a flexible circuit to be coated immersed in an electrophoretic coating dispersion; ¶ [0050]; etc.);
a water washing step of washing away a coating component contained in the coating liquid (e.g., particles) attached to portions of the device not intended to be coated (¶ [0072] application of a solution containing 10% acetic acid in deionized water removed the unexposed portion leaving photocured material adhered to the portion of the conductive traces exposed to ultraviolet radiation and/or the subsequent final rinse in deionized water); and
a baking step of heating the coating component attached to the living body sensor after washing with water (¶ [0072] the photocured coating was heated for about one hour at 170° C to thermally cure the remaining coating and bake it on to the selected conductive traces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miyagawa to comprise an electrodeposition step of applying a potential to the conductive components to be coated in a state where at least the surface of the living body sensor is immersed in a coating liquid; a water washing step of washing away a coating component contained in the coating liquid/particles attached to portions of the surface not intended to be coated (e.g., the diaphragm) of the living body sensor; and a baking step of heating the coating component attached to the living body sensor after the washing step as disclosed/suggested by Pocius in order to selectively apply an electrically insulating, protective layer to the conductive components at the opening of the surface (terminals, solder, conductive wires, etc.) (Pocius, ¶¶ [0004]-[0006], ¶ [0045], etc.), while not limiting/hindering movement of the diaphragm (Miyagawa, ¶ [0175]), i.e., providing a cover/layer with essentially just sufficient insulation to protect the conductive portions without straying into, and potentially hindering the function(s) of, other portions of the device (Pocius, ¶ [0003]), such as the diaphragm.
While Pocius discloses the device (e.g., flexible circuit) is used as a cathode in the electrodeposition step (¶ [0072]), Pocius does not expressly disclose how the potential is applied to the conductive components (e.g., conductive traces) of said device. Accordingly, Pocius (or Miyagawa as modified thereby) does not expressly disclose applying the potential to the conductive components, such as the terminal and solder, through the conductive wire, or a component of the device that remains connected the terminal after deposition of the insulation coating so that the conductive wire is used/usable during operational use of the living body sensor. However, Miyagawa does disclose the conductive wire remains connected to the terminal and is used during operational use of the living body sensor, for example, to calculate the blood pressure acting on the pressure sensor (¶¶ [0149]-[0153]).
Yeong discloses a method of manufacturing a device (packaged component) comprising an electrodeposition step that includes immersing at least one surface of a device in a coating liquid (¶ [0043]); supporting the device in the coating liquid (¶ [0043]) in which a portion of a conductive wire of the device (leads 280) is outside the coating liquid and another portion of the conductive wire is immersed in the coating liquid (¶ [0029]; ¶ [0051]; etc.); applying a potential to conductive components of the device via the conductive wire while the surface(s) of the device is immersed in the coating liquid (¶ [0028]; ¶ [0020] leads 280 are connected to a positive potential or to the first electrode of the EPD process tool), wherein the conductive wire remains connected to said conductive components after manufacture such that the conductive wire is used/usable during operational use of the device (e.g., ¶ [0051] leads may be coated with EPD film except for the regions where they are configured to be connected to a separate component or device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miyagawa with applying the potential to the terminal and solder through the conductive wire as taught/suggested by Yeong in order to provide a cost-efficient way for precisely coating the conductive components at the distal surface with an insulating layer, e.g., by not requiring an additional/separate means (e.g., wire) to facilitate applying the potential to the terminal, solder, etc. (Yeong, ¶ [0014], ¶ [0051]).
Miyagawa as modified does not disclose the living body sensor is supported in the coating liquid by the conductive wire. Rather, Yeong only expressly discloses the device may be supported in the coating liquid by clamping the device to a first electrode.
Szedon discloses a comparable EPD method comprising supporting a device in a coating liquid with a conductive wire of the device, in which a portion of the conductive wire is outside the coating liquid and another portion of the conductive wire is immersed in the coating liquid (e.g., Fig. 2; col. 7, lines 51-55, solid state device 40 with attached connection leads 41 is suspended/hung from its positive end in metal container 42 and centrally immersed in conducting, nonaqueous electrodeposition composition bath 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miyagawa with the living body sensor being supported in the coating liquid by the conductive wire as taught/suggested by Szedon in order to further simplify/reduce costs of manufacture, e.g., by not requiring an additional/separate means (e.g., electrode) to facilitate applying the potential (Szedon, col. 7, line 66 - col. 8, line 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Meredith Weare whose telephone number is 571-270-3957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice to schedule an interview.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tse Chen, can be reached on 571-272-3672. 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.
/Meredith Weare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights