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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20130299923 to Classen.
Regarding Claim 1, Classen discloses a sensor assembly (Figs. 3-5, sensor system 1; ¶¶ [0032]-[0037]), comprising: a substrate (Figs. 3-5, substrate 20; ¶¶ [0032]-[0037]); a seismic mass (Figs. 3-5, seismic mass 30; ¶¶ [0032]-[0037]); a functional layer arranged between the substrate and the seismic mass (Figs. 3-5, flexible stop 10, made of a part of thin functional layer 35; ¶¶ [0032]-[0037]); wherein the seismic mass is connected to the substrate in such a way that the seismic mass can be deflected at least along a first direction running perpendicular to the substrate (Figs. 3-5, seismic mass 30 taking the form of a rocker, that is, seismic mass 30 being joined elastically to substrate 20 via a formation 41 with the aid of a torsion-spring system 40 disposed centrally in terms of the seismic mass, and being deflectable relative to substrate 20 about a torsion axis 5; ¶¶ [0025]-[0037]); and wherein, within the functional layer and between the seismic mass and the substrate, at least one stop is formed that is spring-loaded and can be deflected along the first direction (Figs. 3-5, flexible stop 10, made of a part of thin functional layer 35; ¶¶ [0032]-[0037]).
Regarding Claim 2, Classen discloses an intermediate layer is arranged on a lower side of the seismic mass; the functional layer is arranged on a side of the intermediate layer facing the substrate (Figs. 3-5, el elastic layer 33 from two functional layers 35, 36, layer 36 applied below the seismic mass 30; ¶¶ [0032]-[0037]); and in the functional layer is free-standing in a region of the spring-loaded stop (Figs. 3-5, flexible stop 10, made of a part of thin functional layer 35 with free-standing structure produced by the cutout in further layer 36; ¶¶ [0032]-[0037]).
Regarding Claim 3, Classen discloses an intermediate layer is arranged on an upper side of the substrate (Figs. 3-5, electrode 71 is mounted flat on substrate 20; ¶¶ [0029]-[0037]); the functional layer is arranged on an upper side of the intermediate layer facing away from the substrate (Figs. 3-5, flexible stop 10, made of a part of thin functional layer 35 between electrode 71 and substrate 20; ¶¶ [0029]-[0037]); and the functional layer is free-standing in a region of the spring-loaded stop (16) (Figs. 3-5, flexible stop 10, made of a part of thin functional layer 35 with free-standing structure produced by the cutout in further layer 36; ¶¶ [0032]-[0037]).
Regarding Claim 10, Classen discloses a second stop knob is arranged on a lower side of the spring-loaded stop facing the substrate (Figs. 3-5, flexible stop 10, made of a part of thin functional layer 35 with bottom projection 80; ¶¶ [0029]-[0037]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen as applied to claim1, in view of US 20210341510 to Classen (Classen 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Classen discloses the sensor assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses the seismic mass is formed as a rocker; the rocker is connected to the substrate via at least one spring element in such a way that the rocker is mounted so that the rocker can be deflected about an axis of rotation running parallel to the substrate (Figs. 1-5, seismic mass 30 taking the form of a rocker joined elastically to substrate 20 via a formation 41 with the aid of a torsion-spring system 40 disposed centrally in terms of the seismic mass, and being deflectable relative to substrate 20 about a torsion axis 50; ¶¶ [0025]-[0037]); the rocker has an asymmetrical mass distribution with respect to the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-5, seismic mass 30 taking the form of a rocker with first crossbar 31 and second crossbar 32 specific to torsion axis 50, second crossbar 32 being longer than first crossbar 31, an uneven mass distribution thereby ensuing in the case of seismic mass 30 relative to torsion axis 50; ¶¶ [0025]-[0037]).
However, Classen does not explicitly disclose the rocker has a frame on one side of the axis of rotation; and the rocker has a mass element on a side of the axis of rotation opposite the frame, as a result of which the rocker has an asymmetrical mass distribution with respect to the axis of rotation. Classen 2 discloses the rocker has a frame on one side of the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-4, movable asymmetrical seismic mass 40 hollow portion of layer P3; ¶¶ [0041]-[0047]); and the rocker has a mass element on a side of the axis of rotation opposite the frame, as a result of which the rocker has an asymmetrical mass distribution with respect to the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-4, movable asymmetrical seismic mass 40 solid portion of layer P3; ¶¶ [0041]-[0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Classen by providing the rocker has a frame on one side of the axis of rotation; and the rocker has a mass element on a side of the axis of rotation opposite the frame, as a result of which the rocker has an asymmetrical mass distribution with respect to the axis of rotation as in Classen 2 in order to provide for a well-known alternative implementation of creating asymmetry between the two portions. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Regarding Claim 5, Classen discloses the spring-loaded stop is arranged in an edge region of the rocker running parallel to the axis of rotation (Figs. 3-5, flexible stop 10 at first free end 101 (edge) of rocker; ¶¶ [0029]-[0037]).
Regarding Claim 6, Classen discloses the spring-loaded stop is arranged in a region of the frame of the rocker (Figs. 3-5, flexible stop 10 at first free end 101 (edge) and/or second free end 102 of rocker; ¶¶ [0029]-[0037]).
Regarding Claim 7, Classen 2 discloses the frame has a first thickness dimensioned parallel to the substrate in the region above the spring-loaded stop and a second thickness dimensioned parallel to the substrate in regions outside the spring-loaded stop, where the first thickness is greater than the second thickness (Figs. 1-4, movable asymmetrical seismic mass 40 hollow portion of layer P3 thinner than portion of hollow portion of layer with stops 61, 62 implemented in layers P3 and P2; ¶¶ [0041]-[0047])..
Regarding Claim 8, Classen discloses the spring-loaded stop is arranged in a region of the mass element of the rocker (Figs. 3-5, flexible stops 10 at first free end 101 and/or second free end 102 of rocker; ¶¶ [0029]-[0037]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen as applied to claim 1, in view of US 20100147077 to Ullrich.
Regarding Claim 9, Classen discloses the sensor assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses a first stop is arranged on a lower side of the seismic mass facing the spring-loaded stop, and above the spring-loaded stop (Figs. 3-5, flexible stop 10 with contact point 15 with seismic mass 30, and thus turns into a rigid stop; ¶¶ [0029]-[0037]). However, Classen does not disclose the contact point is a first stop knob. Ullrich discloses the contact point is a first stop knob (Figs. 2 and 6, knobs 12 with stop elements 13; ¶¶ [0040], [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Classen by providing the contact point is a first stop knob as in Ullrich in order to provide for greater mechanical stability.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen as applied to claim 1, in view of US 20190092619 to Herzogenrath.
Regarding Claim 11, Classen discloses the sensor assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses at least one further spring-loaded stop formed within the functional layer (Figs. 3-5, flexible stops 10 at first free end 101 and/or second free end 102 of rocker; ¶¶ [0029]-[0037]). However, Classen is silent regarding the spring-loaded stop and the further spring-loaded stop form a first cascade of spring-loaded stops. Herzogenrath discloses the spring-loaded stop and the further spring-loaded stop form a first cascade of spring-loaded stops (Figs. 1-2 and 5, cascaded stop element 5, 5″; ¶¶ [0039]-[0042], [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Classen by providing the spring-loaded stop and the further spring-loaded stop form a first cascade of spring-loaded stops as in Herzogenrath in order to prevent damage or adhesion by a fine division of the damping of the mass.
Regarding Claim 12, Classen discloses the sensor assembly according to claim 1, but does not disclose an additional functional layer arranged between the substrate and the seismic mass; wherein at least one additional spring-loaded stop is formed within the additional functional layer, and wherein the spring-loaded stop and the additional spring-loaded stop are arranged one above the other and form a second cascade of spring-loaded stop and the at least one additional spring-loaded stop. Herzogenrath discloses an additional functional layer arranged between the substrate and the seismic mass (Figs. 1-2 and 5, multilayer stop 5 and stop 6; ¶¶ [0039]-[0042], [0049]); wherein at least one additional spring-loaded stop is formed within the additional functional layer (Figs. 1-2 and 5, multilayer stop 5; ¶¶ [0039]-[0042], [0049]), and wherein the spring-loaded stop and the additional spring-loaded stop are arranged one above the other and form a second cascade of spring-loaded stop and the at least one additional spring-loaded stop (Figs. 1-2 and 5, cascaded stop element 5, 5″; ¶¶ [0039]-[0042], [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Classen by providing an additional functional layer arranged between the substrate and the seismic mass; wherein at least one additional spring-loaded stop is formed within the additional functional layer, and wherein the spring-loaded stop and the additional spring-loaded stop are arranged one above the other and form a second cascade of spring-loaded stop and the at least one additional spring-loaded stop as in Herzogenrath in order to prevent damage or adhesion by a fine division of the damping of the mass.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that “Classen discloses an elastic layer applied to or forming part of the seismic mass that contacts the substrate during overstress, but does not disclose a functional layer arranged between the substrate and the seismic mass, nor a stop formed within the functional layer”. The examiner disagrees. While Classen at ¶ [0029] does disclose that the elastic layer is applied to the seismic mass, Classen at ¶¶ [0032]-[0033], e.g., further discloses that “a layer construction of elastic layer 33 from two functional layers 35, 36, layer 36 applied below the seismic mass also being denoted as sacrificial layer. The functional layer of seismic mass 30 is thicker than functional layers 35, 36 of elastic layer 33” and “flexible stops 10 are produced by patterning thin functional layer 35 and sacrificial layer 36”.
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 DAVID J BOLDUC whose telephone number is (571)270-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at (571) 272-1672. 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.
/DAVID J BOLDUC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852