DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response, filed 12/15/2025, has been entered. Claims 15-18 are added. Claim 1-18 are pending. All previous objections, 112b rejection, and 112d rejections are withdrawn due to amendment. Applicant’s argument regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1-7 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. Claims 8-18 are allowable.
As an initial note, on page 8, applicant states that the examiner questioned the difference between “determining ‘a current’ and determining ‘a charge’”. This is incorrect. The examiner questioned the difference between determine a current and determining a charge flowing. I.e., a flowing charge is a current. Regardless, applicant’s response and the essentially immaterial difference between the two are sufficient to overcome the previous 112b rejection.
On pages 9-10 of the response, applicant argues that Halbinger fails to teach a measuring device for determining a current and/or a charge flowing between the at least one membrane electrode and the at least one base body electrode. Specifically, applicant argues that Halbinger teaches two separate sensors, one configured to measure pressure and another for the ancillary / current measurement. In response, the examiner notes that some embodiments of Halbinger do teach such a configurations; however, Halbinger also explicitly teaches an modified embodiment in which there is only one sensor for both pressure and limit level (i.e., current as per [0040]). In [0044]-[0046] of the English translation provided in the previous Office action, Halbinger explicitly teaches that the electrode 4 (which forms a capacitor with 6) may be used for both the pressure measurement and the limit level measurement (i.e., current measurement as per [0040]). Halbinger expressly sets forth this modified embodiment as “[i]t has the advantage that a “conventional” capacitive pressure measuring cell can be used” ([0046]). Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
Applicant Admitted Prior Art
In the rejection of claim 3 in the previous Office action, the examiner took Official notice “that it is well-known to ground one electrode and apply a known charge/voltage to a second electrode to, e.g., determine moisture or presence of liquid therebetween. This is simply the use of Ohm’s law V = IR and a simpler way to determine moisture than that of Halbinger.” Applicant’s reply did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official notice. As such, pursuant to paragraph two of MPEP 2144.03 C, “the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art”. The aforementioned is now referred to as Applicant Admitted Prior Art 1 (AAPA 1).
In the rejection of claim 7 in the previous Office action, the examiner took Official notice “that integrated circuits are well-known for their use in the pressure and humidity / moisture measurement arts”. Applicant’s reply did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official notice. As such, pursuant to paragraph two of MPEP 2144.03 C, “the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art”. The aforementioned is now referred to as Applicant Admitted Prior Art 2 (AAPA 2).
However, with that said, the examiner does not find it reasonable to apply AAPA 1 to claims 8 or 15. Specifically, the instant claim limitations and AAPA 1 must be considered in the context of the claim as a whole as well as how AAPA 1 was taken (i.e., regarding Halbinger). AAPA 1 teaches that using two electrodes to determine that moisture or liquid exists is not the same (even in view of Halbinger) as using the two pressure sensing electrodes of a capacitive pressure sensor, one base electrode and the flexible membrane electrode to determine an amount of moisture in the pressure measurement chamber.
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 of this title, 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob et al. (EP 1186875 B1, prior art of record – all citations are to the previous provided English translation) in view of Halbinger et al. (DE 102009002662 A1, prior art of record – all citations are to the previous provided English translation).Regarding claim 1:Jacob teaches (FIGS. 1-2) a measuring arrangement for determining a pressure of a fluid comprising
a pressure measuring cell, which has a measuring chamber (3) formed by means of a base body (1) and a membrane (2) arranged circumferentially on the front side of the base body and spaced apart (via 4) from said base body wherein the membrane can be deformed by means of the pressure of the fluid ([0014]), at least one membrane electrode (8) arranged on the membrane, and at least one base body electrode (6) arranged opposite thereto on the base body, wherein a distance between the membrane electrode and the base body electrode changes due to a pressure change of the fluid acting on the membrane, so that a change in capacitance can be detected ([0014])Jacob fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the measuring arrangement has a measuring device for determining a current and/or a charge flowing between the at least one membrane electrode and the at least one base body electrodeHalbinger teaches:
wherein the measuring arrangement has a measuring device for determining a current and/or charge flowing between the at least one membrane electrode and the at least one base body electrode ([0040])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a measuring device capable of measuring a current flowing between the electrodes, as taught by Halbinger, in the device of Jacob, to allow for detection of moisture in the chamber.
Regarding claim 2:Jacob and Halbinger teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Halbinger teaches:
wherein the measuring device is a current measuring device ([0040])
Regarding claim 3:Jacob and Halbinger teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Jacob and Halbinger fail to explicitly teach:
configured to maintain a ground potential to the membrane electrode, and apply a measuring potential of the measuring arrangement to the at least one base body electrode
However, the examiner takes Official notice (now AAPA 1) that it is well-known to ground one electrode and apply a known charge/voltage to a second electrode to, e.g., determine moisture or presence of liquid therebetween. This is simply the use of Ohm’s law V = IR and a simpler way to determine moisture than that of Halbinger.
Additionally / alternatively, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does…A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” See MPEP 2114 II. All the structure of the instant claim is met. Further, the device of Jacob and Halbinger (as combined in the claim 1 rejection above) is capable of performing the recitation regarding the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed.
Regarding claim 4:Jacob and Halbinger render obvious all the limitations of claim 3, as mentioned above.Jacob and Halbinger fail to explicitly teach:
configured to maintain a constant voltage between the membrane electrode and the at least one base body electrode
However, this limitation is already discussed in the claim 3 rejection above.
Additionally / alternatively, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does…A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” See MPEP 2114 II. All the structure of the instant claim is met. Further, the device of Jacob and Halbinger (as combined in the claim 1 rejection above) is capable of performing the recitation regarding the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed.
Regarding claim 5:Jacob and Halbinger teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Halbinger teaches:
wherein the measuring device is configured to determine a current flowing to the at least one base body electrode and/or a charge flowing to the at least one base body electrode ([0040])
Regarding claim 6:Jacob and Halbinger teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Jacob also teaches (FIGS. 1-2):
wherein at least a first base body electrode (6) and a second base body electrode (7) are arranged on the base body, wherein the first base body electrode is formed as measuring electrode and the second base body electrode as reference electrode
Regarding claim 7:Jacob and Halbinger teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Halbinger appears to teach:
wherein the measuring device is configured as integrated circuit (FIGS. 1-2)
However, the examiner also takes Official notice (now AAPA 2) that integrated circuits are well-known for their use in the pressure and humidity / moisture measurement arts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Each of claims 8 and 15 recite, in a pressure sensor and using the flexible membrane electrode and base electrode which are used to sense pressure, determining a current (and/or charge) flowing between the membrane electrode and the base electrode and determining an amount of moisture in the (pressure) measuring chamber based on the current (and/or charge flowing). Further, new claim 15 contains the limitations of the claim drafted by the examiner in the previous Office action and considered to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855