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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/08/2023 and 01/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (claims 1-6 and 9-14) in the reply filed on 09/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 and 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/17/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 66b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the pressure chamber" in line 2, however, it is unclear whether applicant means to refer to the previously stated “hermetically sealed pressure sensing chamber”, or if applicant is referring to a different pressure chamber in which the limitation should state “a pressure chamber”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “the pressure chamber” will be treated as “the hermetically sealed pressure sensing chamber”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Potasek et al. (US Publication 20130276544).
Regarding independent claim 1, Potasek teaches a packaged pressure sensor assembly (fig. 11, 300) comprising:
a pressure sensor (301) including an upper substrate (328) and a lower substrate (330) bonded to one another by way of a first glass frit having a first bonding temperature (paragraph 0078, “a second bonding material that will not impart undue stress to the final device, such as a second glass frit material of a higher bonding (i.e., transition and/or devitrification) temperature than the first glass frit material, is applied to selected portions of the top surface of the backing wafer, as is known in the art, indicated by stage 5 of FIG. 21”), so as to define a hermetically sealed pressure sensing chamber (paragraph 0055, “topping and base voids 334 and 336 are in fluid communication through channel 318 to form a second pressure space under pressure P2” and paragraph 0018, “second pressure space can be hermetically sealed for sensing absolute pressure of an external pressure source in fluid communication with the first pressure space”) therebetween; and
a housing (326 and 340) defining an internal cavity (344) having a base (326) with a support surface for supporting the pressure sensor (fig. 11), wherein the pressure sensor is bonded to the support surface of the base by a second glass frit having a second bonding temperature that is lower than the first bonding temperature (paragraph 0076, “a bonding material that will not impart undue stress to the final device, for example, a first glass frit material, is applied to selected portions of the top surface of the backing wafer, as is known in the art, as indicated in stage 5 FIG. 19”).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Potasek teaches the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Claim 1, wherein a diaphragm (fig. 12, 312) is operatively associated with the pressure chamber for converting a mechanical stress to an electrical signal indicative of a sensed pressure (paragraph 0005, “traditional piezo resistive MEMS pressure sensors are designed to sense the stress on a diaphragm due to an applied pressure” and paragraph 0065, “thin film metal wiring can be incorporated into topping wafer 328 itself for routing signals”).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Potasek teaches the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Claim 2, wherein the pressure sensor and the housing are adapted and configured to sense an absolute pressure (paragraph 0059, “If absolute pressure sensing is desired, one of the first or second pressure spaces can be hermetically sealed”).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Potasek teaches the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Claim 2, wherein the pressure sensor and the housing are adapted and configured to sense a differential pressure (paragraph 0055, “first and second pressure spaces are sealed from one another within the diaphragm enclosure for sensing differential pressure between respective first and second external pressure sources P1 and P2 across diaphragm 312”).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Potasek teaches the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Claim 2, wherein the housing includes a pair of electrical connectors (fig. 7, 246) for electrically communicating with the diaphragm.
Regarding dependent claim 13, Potasek teaches the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Claim 2, wherein the diaphragm has at least a piezo-resistive layer thereon made from a single silicon material or a polysilicon material (paragraph 0079, “etched, doped polysilicon may be used to form precision resistors, piezoresistive elements, electrical conduits, plates of a capacitor, gates, and other electrical and structural components of a MEMS device as is known in the industry”).
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.
Claims 6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potasek in view of Sooriakumar et al. (US Publication 5600071).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Potasek teaches the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Claim 5, wherein bonding wires (fig. 7, 242) extend between the electrical connectors of the housing and a conductive bond pad (paragraph 0069, “the upward facing part of mounting base 314 in FIG. 11 and mounting base 614 in FIG. 15”) associated with the upper substrate.
Potasek does not teach and wherein the conductive bond pad communicates with electrical conductors connected to the diaphragm by way of a metallic layer deposited between the upper and lower substrates outboard from the first glass frit.
Sooriakumar teaches and wherein the conductive bond pad (fig. 3, 102) communicates with electrical conductors (79, col. 4 ln. 1-2) connected to the diaphragm (77) by way of a metallic layer (81) deposited between the upper (72) and lower (71) substrates outboard from the first glass frit (87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Potasek and the metallic layer of Sooriakumar in order to connect the transducer with the electrical conductors (Sooriakumar col. 4 ln. 1-3).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Potasek in view of Sooriakumar further teaches the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Claim 6.
Potasek in view of Sooriakumar does not teach wherein the metallic layer has a melting temperature that is less than the first bonding temperature, however, Sooriakumar discloses bonding layer 107 to comprise “for example, a lead glass, a gold/silicon eutectic, a lead/tin solder, an epoxy, an elastomeric die attach material (e.g., dimethyl silicone or fluorosilicone), or the like” (col. 6 ln. 6-9) and the glass frit 87 to comprise “a glass frit material such as a low-melting-point (about 450.degree. C. to about 550.degree. C.)”, and the eutectic bonding temperature of gold-silicon mixtures is around 363 ⁰C, which is less than the first bonding temperature of 450-550 ⁰C.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gold/silicon eutectic material for metallic layer 81 of Sooriakumar, since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Potasek in view of Sooriakumar teaches the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Claim 10.
Potasek in view of Sooriakumar does not explicitly teach wherein the metallic layer is formed from an alloy having a melting temperature that is less than the first bonding temperature, however, Sooriakumar discloses bonding layer 107 to comprise “for example, a lead glass, a gold/silicon eutectic, a lead/tin solder, an epoxy, an elastomeric die attach material (e.g., dimethyl silicone or fluorosilicone), or the like” (col. 6 ln. 6-9) and the glass frit 87 to comprise “a glass frit material such as a low-melting-point (about 450.degree. C. to about 550.degree. C.)”, and the eutectic bonding temperature of gold-silicon mixtures is around 363 ⁰C, which is less than the first bonding temperature of 450-550 ⁰C.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gold/silicon eutectic material for metallic layer 81 of Sooriakumar, since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding dependent claim 12, Potasek in view of Sooriakumar teaches the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Claim 11.
Potasek in view of Sooriakumar does not explicitly teach wherein the metallic layer is a gold alloy, however, Sooriakumar discloses bonding layer 107 to comprise “for example, a lead glass, a gold/silicon eutectic, a lead/tin solder, an epoxy, an elastomeric die attach material (e.g., dimethyl silicone or fluorosilicone), or the like” (col. 6 ln. 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gold/silicon eutectic material for metallic layer 81 of Sooriakumar, since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potasek.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Potasek teaches the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Claim 5, wherein the lower substrate of the pressure sensor is bonded to a compliant pedestal substrate (fig. 12, 316).
Potasek does not explicitly teach by way of another glass frit having a bonding temperature equal to the bonding temperature of the first glass frit, however, Potasek discloses “the backing and diaphragm substrates are bonded together using a high temperature bonding method such as fusion bond, eutectic bond, or a high temperature, high devitrification temperature frit and its bonding process” (paragraph 0070), of which the bonding temperature of the first glass frit is also of a high temperature bonding method (see paragraph 0078, “a second bonding material that will not impart undue stress to the final device, such as a second glass frit material of a higher bonding (i.e., transition and/or devitrification) temperature than the first glass frit material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the bonding temperatures of the glass frits to be equal with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potasek in view of Duqi et al. (US Publication 20180148316).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Potasek teaches the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Claim 1.
Potasek does not teach wherein the housing is formed from stainless steel and the base is formed from an alloy of nickel, cobalt and iron.
Duqi teaches wherein the housing is formed from stainless steel and the base is formed from an alloy of nickel, cobalt and iron (paragraph 0023, “container 2 may be of any suitable material, such as steel, stainless steel, ceramic, or metal alloys with low coefficient of thermal expansion (e.g., iron alloys with nickel and cobalt, the chemistry of which is controlled for presenting characteristics of low and uniform thermal expansion)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the packaged pressure sensor assembly of Potasek and the material for the housing of Duqi in order to use the sensor for high-pressure application (Duqi paragraph 0005).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Y CHA whose telephone number is (703)756-5393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm and every other Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/GRACE CHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897