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 Objections Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13 , 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 7: –at least one– should be inserted before “substrate”; Claim 1, line 11: –at least one– should be inserted before “second insulating”; Claim 1, line 13: –at least one– should be inserted before “structural”; Claim 1, line 13: –at least one– should be inserted before “second insulating”; Claim 2, line 2: –at least one– should be inserted before “substrate”; Claim 7, line 2: –at least one– should be inserted before “structural”; Claim 8, line 2: –at least one– should be inserted before “structural”; Claim 9, lines 1-2: “the thickness of the” should be replaced with –a thickness of the at least one–; Claim 10, lines 1-2: “the thickness of the” should be replaced with –a thickness of the at least one–; Claim 13, line 2: –at least one– should be inserted before “structural” ; Claim 15, line 10: “the interdigitated electrodes” should be replaced with –interdigitated–; and Claim 16, line 1: –first– should be inserted before “photoresist”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. No limitations were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). 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. 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 . 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. Claims 1 -3, 5, 6, 8-11, 14 , 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0035888 A1 ( Irazoqui ) (previously cited) in view of US 2011/0230747 A1 (Rogers) (previously cited) , US 2004/0020303 A1 (Blomberg) (previously cited) , and US 2019/0165250 A1 ( Sounart ) (previously cited) With regards to claim 1, Irazoqui teaches a n intracranial pressure sensor for measuring intracranial pressure (¶ [0246] teaches the pressure sensors in a cranial cavity for monitoring of cranial pressure) , comprising : at least one substrate (Fig. 1C depicts a substrate 110) ; at least one second insulating layer into which at least one electrode is embedded (Fig. 1C and ¶¶ [0125]-[0126] depicts a form factor material 140 comprising parylene, wherein the lower electrode or capacitive layer or plate 146 has a layer of the material 140 deposited thereon . To the extent that the Applicant’s embedded electrodes are merely covered by the at least one second insulating layer, as depicted in ¶¶ [0067], [0078] and Figs. 5 and 12A of the published application, Irazoqui teaches at least one electrode embedded in the at least one second insulating layer in Fig. 1C and ¶ [0126] because the material 140 is deposited on plate 146 ), the at least one second insulating layer having at least one opening for exposing the at least one electrode (Fig. 1C depicts the material 140 having passageways for allowing lead 122 to connect to integrated circuit 112 and lower electrode 146) , at least one deformable structural layer connected to the second insulating layer such that the at least one deformable structural layer forms at least one cavity delineated by both the structural layer and the second insulating layer (Fig. 1C and ¶ [0126] depict an upper plate 144 and its lead 120 being sandwiched between layers of material 140, the combination of which amounts to at least one deformable structural layer. Fig. 1C and ¶ [0127] depict the at least one deformable structural layer, along with the layer of material 140 that covers the electrode 146, delineating the dielectric region 14, which is an air-filled gap) , wherein the at least one electrode is embedded in the at least one second insulating layer at a location of the at least one second insulating layer that is disposed between the cavity and the at least one substrate (Fig. 1C depicts the plate 146 embedded within material 140 and located between the dielectric region 148 and the substrate 110) ; and at least one interconnect for providing means for electrical connection to the at least one electrode (Fig. 1C and ¶ [0126] depicts lead 122 for connecting the lower plate 146 to integrated circuit 112) . Irazoqui is silent regarding at least one bioresorbable porous silicon form ; at least one substrate which is either converted to one of the at least one bioresorbable porous silicon form or comprises other rigid bioresorbable materials . In the same filed of endeavor of implantable biomedical devices, Rogers teaches at least one bioresorbable porous silicon form (¶ [0031] discloses a bioresorbable, inorganic semiconductor component including porous silicon) ; at least one substrate which is either converted to one of the at least one bioresorbable porous silicon form or comprises other rigid bioresorbable materials (¶ [0031] discloses semiconductor components including ZnO and a bioresorbable, inorganic semiconductor component including porous silicon; ¶ [0030] discloses methods for forming the semiconductor device/materials) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate of Chen to incorporate that it is either converted to bioresorbable porous silicon form or comprises other rigid bioresorbable materials, such as ZnO ceramic as taught by Rogers. The motivation would have been to provide good electronic properties (¶ [0031] of Rogers). The above combination is silent regarding at least one first insulating layer for providing electrical isolation , wherein the at least one first insulating layer is formed on the substrate. In the same field of endeavor of pressure sensors, Blomberg teaches at least one first insulating layer for providing electrical isolation , wherein the at least one first insulating layer is formed on the substrate (¶ [0023] and Fig. 1 depict a dielectric layer 2 being silicon dioxide and being formed on a silicon substrate 1 ). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate at least one first insulating layer for providing electrical isolation , wherein the at least one first insulating layer is formed on the substrate as taught by Blomberg. The motivation would have been to isolate the bottom electrode from the substrate in situations where it is not desirable to use the substrate alone as the bottom electrode (see ¶ [0031] of Blomberg). The above combination is silent regarding at least one deformable structural layer connected to the second insulating layer via at least one anchor . In the same field of endeavor of pressure sensors, Blomberg teaches at least one deformable structural layer (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0022] depict a combination of polycrystalline silicon layer 6 and silicon layer 7; ¶ [0026] depicts layers 6 and 7 deflecting due to a pressure differential between the cavity area 10 and the ambient pressure) connected to a layer via at least one anchor (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0022] depict layers 6 and 7 connected to polycrystalline silicon layer 3 via dielectric layer 4) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cavity of the above combination to incorporate , based on the teachings of Blomberg, that the structural layer is connected to the second insulating layer via at least one anchor . Because both of the structures of Blomberg and Irazoqui are capable of forming a pressure-deflectable cavity (Fig. 1 of Blomberg and ¶ [0125] of Irazoqui ), it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. The above combination is silent regarding whether the at least one second insulating layer contains at least two electrodes, the at least one second insulating layer having at least two openings for exposing the said electrodes . In the same field of endeavor of pressure sensors, Sounart teaches using one or more electrodes for pressure sensing ( Figs. 4-7 teach using one or a plurality of electrodes for the pressure sensing device) , wherein the electrodes have respective areas for electrical connections (Fig. 6 and ¶ [0035] depict conductive structures 632, 636 functioning as first and second interdigitated electrodes and having connections 625-626, wherein the combination of 632, 636, and piezoelectric material 634 form the pressure sensing device). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the one electrode arrangement of Irazoqui with the interdigitated electrode arrangement as taught by Fig. 6 of Sounart . Because both one-electrode and two-electrode arrangements are capable of being used for pressure sensing devices (Figs. 4-7 of Sounart ), it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. With regards to claim 2, the above combination is silent regarding whether the substrate is doped. In the same filed of endeavor of implantable biomedical devices, Rogers teaches a semiconductor with doping materials (¶ [0091] discloses s emiconductors having p-type doping materials and n-type doping materials, to provide beneficial electronic properties useful for a given application or device ). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate to incorporate that it is doped as taught by Rogers. The motivation would have been to provide beneficial electronic properties (¶ [0091] of Rogers). With regards to claim 3, the above combination teaches or suggests that the at least one first insulating layer is made of SiO 2 or Si 3 N 4 or both (see the above combination of Irazoqui in view of Blomberg; ¶ [0023] of Blomberg teaches the dielectric layer 2 is silicon dioxide). With regards to claim 5, the above combination teaches or suggests the at least two electrodes are interdigitated with each other (see the above combination of Irazoqui in view of Sounart ; Fig. 6 and ¶ [0035 ] of Sounart depict conductive structures 632, 636 functioning as first and second interdigitated electrodes) . With regards to claim 6, the above combination is silent regarding whether the electrodes are formed by bioresorbable metals. In the same filed of endeavor of implantable biomedical devices, Rogers teaches electrodes formed by bioresorbable metals (¶ [0035] discloses at least a portion, and optionally all of, the electrodes comprise a bioresorbable metal, such as of iron, magnesium, and any combination of these ) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode to incorporate that it is formed by bioresorbable metals such as magnesium (Mg), molybdenum (Mo), zinc (Zn), Tungsten (W) or iron (Fe) or compounds and/or alloys thereof as taught by Rogers. Because both materials are capable of being used for electrodes, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. With regards to claim 8, the above combination is silent regarding whether the structural layer is fabricated from a silicon based inorganic material, including but not limited to polycrystalline silicon (poly Si), amorphous silicon ( aSi ) or silicon oxide/nitride (SiO 2 /Si 3 N 4 ) or a combination thereof. In the same field of endeavor of pressure sensors, Blomberg teaches a structural layer is fabricated from a silicon based inorganic material, including but not limited to polycrystalline silicon (poly Si), amorphous silicon ( aSi ) or silicon oxide/nitride (SiO 2 /Si 3 N 4 ) or a combination thereof (Fig. 2 and ¶¶ [0022], [0024] depict a layer 6 of deflectable layers 6, 7 being formed of a polycrystalline silicon) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the material of the structural layer of Blomberg with the silicon based inorganic material of Blomberg. Because both elements are capable of being used for a capacitive pressure sensor (¶ [0015] of Blomberg; ¶ [0012] of Irazoqui ), it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. With regards to claim 9 , the above combination teaches or suggests a thickness of the material of a structural layer is between 1µm - 3µm (¶ [0125] and Fig. 1C of Irazoqui depict a thickness T 3 being no greater than about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 10 microns, wherein the thickness T 3 includes the thickness of upper plate 144 sandwiched by material 140). With regards to claim 10 , the above combination teaches the passivation layer is typically about 500 nm thick (¶ [0024] of Blomberg) . However, the above combination is silent regarding whether the thickness of the sealing layer is between 1µm - 3µm. The thickness of the sealing layer would depend upon the desired ability to protect the elements . As such, the thickness of the sealing layer is a results-effective variable that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the desired ability to protect the elements . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the thickness of the sealing layer to be between 1µm - 3µm so as to arrive at the ability to protect the elements. Alternatively or additionally, claim 10 would have been obvious in view of the combination since the Federal Circuit 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 (MPEP 21044.04). With regards to claim 11 , the above combination teaches or suggests the sealing layer is made of silicon dioxide (SiO 2 ) or any other bioresorbable material (see the above combination of Irazoqui in view of Blomberg; ¶ [0024] of Blomberg teaches the passivation layer comprises silicon dioxide) . With regards to claim 14, the above combination teaches or suggests an antenna that is electrically connected to the interconnects (¶¶ [0112]-[0113] of Irazoqui discloses the pressure sensor provides data to integrated circuit 112 which then delivers data to the antenna 116, which require electrical connections) . With regards to claim 17 , the above combination teaches or suggests the other rigid bioresorbable material includes ZnO ceramic (see the above combination of Irazoqui in view of Rogers; ¶ [0031] of Rogers discloses the semiconductor materials include ZnO ). With regards to claim 18 , the above combination teaches or suggests the bioresorbable metals include magnesium (Mg), molybdenum (Mo), zinc(Zn), Tungsten (V) or iron (Fe) or compounds and/or alloys of magnesium (Mg), molybdenum (Mo), zinc (Zn), Tun g sten (W) or iron (Fe) (see the above combination of Irazoqui in view of Rogers; ¶ [0035] of Rogers discloses at least a portion, and optionally all of, the electrodes comprise a bioresorbable metal, such as of iron, magnesium, and any combination of these ) . Claim s 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irazoqui in view of Rogers , Blomberg, and Sounart , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0046439 A1 (Dos Santos) (previously cited) With regards to claim 4, the above combination is silent regarding whether the at least one first insulating layer is deposited through physical or chemical vapor deposition processes. In a system relevant to the problem of manufacturing packages, Dos Santos teaches at least one first insulating layer is deposited through physical or chemical vapor deposition processes (¶ [0061] teaches materials used in MEMS components may include silicon dioxide and materials may be formed by vapor deposition or spin coating layers). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulating layer of the above combination to incorporate that it is deposited through a standard physical or chemical vapor deposition processes as taught by Dos Santos. Because both methods of Dos Santos and Blomberg are capable of forming the insulating layer (¶ [0061] of Dos Santos; Fig. 8 and ¶ [0052] of Blomberg), it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. With regards to claim 7, the above combination is silent regarding whether the structural layer is deposited through physical or chemical vapor deposition processes. In a system relevant to the problem of manufacturing packages, Dos Santos teaches depositing materials through physical or chemical vapor deposition processes (¶ [0061] teaches materials used in MEMS components may include materials formed by vapor deposition or spin coating layers). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of forming the structural layer of the above combination to incorporate that it is deposited through standard physical or chemical vapor deposition processes as taught by Dos Santos. The motivation would have been to make the structural layer easier to fabricate. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irazoqui in view of Rogers , Blomberg, and Sounart , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0017691 A1 (Ishihara) (previously cited) With regards to claim 12 , the above combination is silent regarding whether the at least two interconnects are deposited on the exposed parts of the at least two electrodes In the same field of endeavor of developing pressure sensors, Ishihara teaches interconnects are deposited on the exposed parts of the electrodes (¶ [0053] and Fig. 1 t eaches electrode lead-out pads are connected through conductors that are deposited as thin-films in the respective electrode lead-out holes). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interconnects of Irazoqui to incorporate that they are deposited on the exposed parts of the electrodes as taught by Ishihara. Because both methods of Irazoqui and Ishihara are capable of forming interconnects to electrodes (¶ [0053] of Ishihara; ¶ [0147] of Irazoqui ), it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irazoqui in view of Rogers , Blomberg, and Sounart , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0306703 A1 ( Kashkarov ) (previously cited) With regards to claim 13, the above combination is silent regarding whether the structural layer is coated with a triggered bioresorbable material. In a system relevant to the problem of manufacturing resorbable implants, Kashkarov teaches a radiation-sensitive water repellant coating that is bioresorbable (¶ [0091]) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structural layer to incorporate that it is coated with a triggered bioresorbable material as taught by Kashkarov . The motivation would have been to allow for the controlled resorption of portions of the device (¶ [0091] of Kashkarov ), thereby allowing for the portions of the device to be transient. No Prior Art Rejections of Claims 15 and 16 With regards to claim 15, the prior art does not teach or suggest the combination of “ providing a doped silicon substrate and a layer of insulating material ,” “ removing specific parts of the first photoresist that are defined by patterns formed, thereby forming recesses ; forming at least two electrodes in the recesses by deposition of bioresorbable metals, and removing a remaining photoresist layer, thereby forming gaps between the at least two electrodes, wherein the at least two electrodes are interdigitated electrodes ,” “s electively etching the sacrificial layer, thereby forming anchor openings for diaphragm anchors, depositing a structural layer of a material different than the material of the sacrificial layer on the sacrificial layer and inside the anchor openings, selectively etching the structural layer, thereby forming the diaphragm anchors ” and “ selectively converting the doped silicon substrate into bioresorbable porous silicon form through an electrochemical etching process in an electrochemical etch cell ”, along with the other features of claim 15. There are no prior art rejections of claim 16 by virtue of its dependence from claim 15. Claims 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections , set forth in this Office actio n . Relevant prior art include: US 2018/0035888 A1 ( Irazoqui ) (previously cited) which teaches a process for forming a capacitive pressure sensor (¶ [0157] and Figs. 12A-12F). US 2004/0020303 A1 (Blomberg) (previously cited) teaches a method of manufacturing a capacitive pressure sensor (Fig. 8 and ¶¶ [0050]-[0068]). However, Irazoqui and Blomberg do not teach or suggest the above combination of elements. The state of the art provides no teaching or suggestion that would reasonably lead one of skill to arrive at the above combination of elements in claim 1 5 absent improper hindsight or an otherwise inarticulate combination of inadequate teachings. Response to Arguments Claim objections There are new grounds of claim objections. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) In view of the claim amendments filed 01/02/2026, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) were withdrawn. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 10 of the response filed 01/02/2026, the Applicant argues that Irazoqui teaches a purported insulating layer 140 disposed on top of the lower electrode 146 and the electrode 146 is not embedded within the purported insulating layer between the cavity 148 and the substrate 110 in the manner claimed. This argument is not persuasive . First, t he plain and ordinary meaning of embedded is “enclosed closely in or as if in a matrix : set firmly into a mass or material”. Irazoqui depicts the layer 140 enclosing the top and sides of the electrode 1 46 in Fig. 1C, which reads upon the claim language. Therefore, Irazoqui teaches an electrode embedded in the layer 140. Second, the Examiner asserts that the lower electrode 146 is embedded within the insulating layer 140 of Irazoqui to the extent that the Applicant’s electrode is embedded within the second ins ulating layer. At most, t he Applicant’s specification indicates that the claimed embedded electrodes are a result of the second insulating layer being deposited on the electrodes , as depicted in ¶ [0078] of the published application. Applicant’s Figs. 5 and 12A further depict the layer 108 merely enclosing the tops and sides of the electrodes. Irazoqui teaches the material of layer 140 is deposited on plate 146 in ¶ [0126] , wherein the layer 140 encloses the top and sides of the electrode 146, as depicted in Fig. 1C. Therefore, Irazoqui teaches an electrode embedded in the layer 140. Third, Fig. 1C of Irazoqui clearly depict the electrode being at a location of the layer 140 that is disposed between the dielectric region 148 and the substrate 110 . On page 11 of the response filed 01/02/2026, the Applicant argues that none of the cited references, taken singly or in any combination, disclose or render obvious at least one second insulating layer that delineates a cavity with a deformable structural layer. This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner ass erts that Fig. 1C and ¶ [0126] of Irazoqui depict an upper plate 144 and its lead 120 being sandwiched between layers of material 140, wherein the combination amount to a deformable structural layer. Fig. 1C and ¶ [0127] of Irazoqui further depict the deformable structural layer, along with the layer of material 140 that covers the electrode 146, delineating the dielectric region 148. On pages 12-14 of the response filed 01/02/2026, the Applicant argues that modifying the lower electrode to be embedded in material 140 would prevent the lower electrode from acting as a reference for purposes of detecting changes in the membrane 142, rendering the device of Irazoqui unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. This argument is not persuasive because the Office action does not propose any modifications for embedding the lower electrode within the material 140. Irazoqui already teaches the lower electrode is embedded within the material 140 for the reasons listed above. On pages 12-14 of the response filed 01/02/2026, the Applicant argues that the cited references nowhere recognize a benefit sealing the electrodes within a second insulating layer or provide any other reason for employing a second insulating layer that delineates a cavity with a deformable structural layer and includes at least two electrodes embedded therein between the cavity and the substrate as claimed because it would be based on impermissible hindsight. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the rejection. The second insulating layer of Irazoqui (i.e., the material 140) already covers the electrode 146 such that it is embedded within the second insulating layer. Additionally, the cavity of Irazoqui (i.e., the dielectric region 148) is delineated by the deformable structural layer (i.e., the combination of the upper plate 144 , its lead 120 , and layers of material 140 ) and the second insulating layer (i.e., the layer of 140 that covers and embeds the electrode 146). The Office action does not propose modifying the second insulating layer to cover the electrode or delineate the cavity. To the extent that it can be argued that the modification to arrive at the two electrodes amounts to impermissible hindsight, the Examiner asserts that , in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin , 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Sounart teaches using one or more electrodes for pressure sensing (Figs. 4-7 teach using one or a plurality of electrodes for the pressure sensing device), wherein the electrodes have respective areas for electrical connections (Fig. 6 and ¶ [0035] depict conductive structures 632, 636 functioning as first and second interdigitated electrodes and having connections 625-626, wherein the combination of 632, 636, and piezoelectric material 634 form the pressure sensing device). It would h ave been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the one electrode arrangement of Irazoqui with the interdigitated electrode arrangement as taught by Fig. 6 of Sounart . Because both one-electrode and two-electrode arrangements are capable of being used for pressure sensing devices (Figs. 4-7 of Sounart ), it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. On pages 16-17 of the response filed 01/02/2026, the Applicant argues the inventors have solved dissolution of the electrode immediate after implantation by conceiving a design in which a second insulating layer delineates a cavity with a deformable structural layer and includes at least two electrodes embedded therein, and one of ordinary skill would not have increased the cost of implementing these features without recognizing the problem identified by the present inventors. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the rejection. The second insulating layer of Irazoqui (i.e., the material 140) already covers the electrode 146 such that it is embedded within the second insulating layer. Additionally, the cavity of Irazoqui (i.e., the dielectric region 148) is delineated by the deformable structural layer (i.e., the combination of the upper plate 144 , its lead 120 , and layers of material 140 ) and the second insulating layer (i.e., the layer of 140 that covers and embeds the electrode 146). The Office action does not propose modifying the second insulating layer to cover the electrode or delineate the cavity. Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims are not persuasive because the Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 were not persuasive. 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 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8637 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5596 . 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. /S.C.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /JACQUELINE CHENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791