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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
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), US 2019/0165250 A1 (Sounart) (previously cited), and US 2012/0197155 A (Mattes)
With regards to claim 1, Irazoqui teaches an 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. There are no indications within the Applicant’s specification that other structural or chemical elements are required for achieving the embedding), 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 at least one second insulating layer such that the at least one deformable structural layer forms at least one cavity delineated by both the at least one deformable structural layer and the at least one 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 located 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 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.
The above combination is silent regarding whether the at least two electrodes are 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 such that the at least two electrodes are enclosed along tops and sides of the at least two electrodes by the at least one second insulating layer at said location.
In the same field of endeavor of pressure sensors, Mattes teaches at least one electrode is embedded in the at least one insulating layer at a location of the at least one insulating layer that is disposed between a cavity and at least one substrate such that the at least one electrode is enclosed along tops and sides of the at least one electrode by the at least one insulating layer at said location (Fig. 5A and ¶ [0099] depict a signal electrode 274 embedded by oxide material 263 and oxide layer 251 at a location between a gap 276 and a substrate 281 such that the tops and sides of the signal electrode 274 are enclosed by 263 and 251 at the location). 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 at least two electrodes of the above combination to incorporate, based on the teachings of Mattes, to incorporate that they are 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 such that the at least two electrodes are enclosed along tops and sides of the at least two electrodes by the at least one second insulating layer at said location. Because both arrangements are capable of being used for monitoring pressure, it would have been the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Additionally or alternatively, the above limitation would have been obvious because, similar to Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) of MPEP 21044.04(IV)(A), the difference between the prior art combination and the claimed invention is the change in relative dimension of the at least two electrodes in relation to the at least one second insulating layer. However, the claimed relative dimensions would not have performed differently than the prior art combination, so the claimed device is not patentably different from the prior art combination.
With regards to claim 2, the above combination is silent regarding whether the at least one substrate is doped.
In the same filed of endeavor of implantable biomedical devices, Rogers teaches a semiconductor with doping materials (¶ [0091] discloses semiconductors 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 SiO2 or Si3N4 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 at least one deformable 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 (SiO2/Si3N4) 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 (SiO2/Si3N4) 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 at least one deformable structural layer is between 1µm - 3µm (¶ [0125] and Fig. 1C of Irazoqui depict a thickness T3 being no greater than about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 10 microns, wherein the thickness T3 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 (SiO2) 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), Tungsten (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).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irazoqui in view of Rogers, Blomberg, Sounart, and Mattes 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 at least one deformable 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, Sounart, and Mattes, 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 teaches 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, Sounart, and Mattes, 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 at least one deformable 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 are allowed.
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,” “selectively 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.
Claim 16 is allowed by virtue of its dependence from claim 15.
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 15 absent improper hindsight or an otherwise inarticulate combination of inadequate teachings.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
In view of the claim amendments filed 06/05/2026, the claim objections were withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Applicant' s amendment and arguments filed 06/05/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2012/0197155 A (Mattes). Specifically, the previously applied prior art combination does not disclose “the at least two electrodes are 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 such that the at least two electrodes are enclosed along tops and sides of the at least two electrodes by the at least one second insulating layer at said location” but Mattes teaches at least one electrode embedded in at least one substrate at a location between a substrate and a cavity such that tops and sides of the at least one electrode are enclosed by the at least one substrate. Therefore, the previously applied 103 rejection has been modified to incorporate the teachings of Mattes.
To the extent that the Applicant' s arguments are applicable to the current rejections, the Examiner makes the following comments.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 16-17 of the Remarks filed 06/05/2026, the Applicant argues that modifying the lower electrode to be embedded in material 140 would force the electrode to move with the membrane and 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 they amount to mere attorney argument without sufficient evidence that the modification would result in the electrode moving with the membrane. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that the reason the electrode functions as a reference electrode is because it is supported by the substrate 110, which may not bend or deform due to the increased pressure, or may deform to a much lesser extent. See ¶ [0125] of Irazoqui. The proposed modification would not change the support provided by substrate to the lower electrode. Therefore, the electrode would still be able to function as a reference electrode, and the proposed modification would not render the device of Irazoqui unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
On pages 16-17 of the Remarks filed 06/05/2026, 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 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.
On pages 19-20 of the response filed 06/05/2026, 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.
On pages 20-22 of the response filed 06/05/2026, the Applicant argues that substituting the one electrode arrangement of Irazoqui with the interdigitated electrode arrangement of Sounart would have modified the principle of operation of Irazoqui because Sounart’s interdigitated electrodes function only in cooperation with an interposed piezoelectric film and do not form a variable air-gap capacitor.
This argument is not persuasive. The argument is not commensurate with the scope of the rejection because the proposed modification does not include bringing in an interposed piezoelectric film that would change the principle of operation of Irazoqui. The only proposed modification is the substitution of the one electrode arrangement of Irazoqui with the interdigitated electrode arrangement as taught by Fig. 6 of Sounart.
Additionally, there is no indication that the interdigitated electrodes of Fig. 6 are not capable of being used in an air-gap capacitor relationship, and neither Irazoqui or Sounart teach away from the use of the interdigitated electrodes in an air-gap capacitor. Even the Applicant’s specification compares the use of a parallel plate with the interdigitated sensor in ¶ [0091] of the published application, which further suggests that the single electrode and the interdigitated electrode arrangements are interchangeable. Additionally, the Applicant’s specification does not indicate how the claimed at least two electrodes are used together to provide the pressure measurement in the air-gap capacitor, which further suggests that one of ordinary skill would be able to figure out how an interdigitated electrode arrangement would be used in the air-gap capacitor if they had knowledge of how a parallel plate arrangement works.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims are not persuasive because the Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 were not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (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
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights