NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Drawings are objected because all the elements mentioned in the claim are not shown. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “a connector coupled to the support structure”, claimed in claim 79 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 79-81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim79 recites a limitation " a connector coupled to the support structure." The originally filed specification discloses “A connector 26 can be coupled to the cap 12.” (See Para. [0041]), not with the support structure, as claimed. Claimed invention must reflect in the specification. Therefore, the originally filed specification fails to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 69 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 69 recites the limitation "the sensor die" which has not been previously defined. This limitation is first found in claim 68, but claim 69 does not depend on claim 68. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, Claim 69 is rejected as being indefinite as the recited limitation "the sensor package of Claim 70, wherein the sensor die comprises a microelectromechanical systems (MEMs) sensor die" is confusing. One of ordinary skill in the art fails to ascertain how a claim depends from another claim which is not cited yet. Further, the limitations are first introduced in claim 68, not in claim 70. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot fully determine the scope of the claimed invention.
A suggestion for correction: Apparently, claim 69 should depend from claim 68 as the limitation “a sensor die” is first disclosed in claim 68.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 65 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamine et al. (US 2023/0324345 Al, “Takamine”) in view of Michael (US 2017/0182258 A1) and Barger et al. (US 2013/0160556 A1, “Barger”).
Regarding Claim 65, Takamine teaches a sensor package (fig.1-10) comprising: a support structure (3) configured to couple with a vibration source (4) by way of an adhesive portion (3); a cap (6) at least partially disposed over the support structure (shown in fig.1-6), the cap at least partially defining a cavity (shown in fig.1-6); and a vibration sensor module (5) coupled to a portion of the support structure and disposed in the cavity (shown in fig.1-6 and discussed in [0021]).
Takamine does not teach – (i) a stud as support structure; and (ii) wherein the sensor package has a mechanical resonant frequency in a range of 0.1 Hz to 11 kHz.
As to (i), Michael teaches an adjunct device for tracks time and/or dosage of a medicine comprising one or more vibration sensors [Abstract] wherein attachment between the injector and/or device may include a stud and/or an adhesive [0129].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takamine’s attachment with the teaching of Michael and replacing Takamine’s adhesive with Michael’s stud since this is a known alternative in the field of attachment, as depicted in Michael art, which would provide more strength to the sensor package.
As to (ii), Barger teaches an acoustic sensor having piezoelectric material housed in a cartridge [Abstract] wherein the resonance frequency of the cartridge 202 having the sensor assembly to resonate at about 100 Hz [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sensor package that has a mechanical resonant frequency in a range of 0.1 Hz to 11 kHz because any sensor package has a resonant frequency and to have a sensor package with a resonant frequency in the wide range of 0.1 Hz to 11 kHz is well-known in the art, as depicted in Barger art where the sensor assembly to resonate at about 100 Hz. One having ordinary skill in the art would make a sensor assembly of any value within the range depending on the operational frequencies.
Regarding Claim 78, the sensor package of Claim 65 is taught by Takamine in view of Michael and Barger.
Barger teaches an acoustic sensor having piezoelectric material housed in a cartridge [Abstract] wherein the resonance frequency of the cartridge 202 having the sensor assembly to resonate at about 100 Hz [0043].
Modified Takamine discloses the claimed invention except for sensor package has a mechanical resonant frequency in a range of 5 kHz to 11 kHz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a sensor package having a mechanical resonant frequency in a range of 5 kHz to 11 kHz, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, in this case to make a sensor assembly of any value within the range depending on the operational frequencies, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a sensor package having a mechanical resonant frequency in a range of 5 kHz to 11 kHz., since applicant has not disclosed that such range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the modified Takamine.
Claims 72-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamine in view of Michael, Barger and Sakuma et al. (US 2012/0304765 A1, “Sakuma”).
Regarding Claim 72, the sensor package of Claim 65 is taught by Takamine in view of Michel and Barger.
Modified Takamine does not explicitly teach that the support structure comprises a material that has a Young's modulus in a range of 60 GPa to 200 GPa.
However, Sakuma teaches a module includes a sensor device, a mounting substrate that has a plurality of mounting faces, a portion between the mounting faces adjacent to each other being foldable, a supporting member having fixing faces, wherein the sensor device is mounted on at least one of the mounting faces, each of the mounting faces is disposed along each of the fixing faces, and the sensor device is disposed on the supporting member side [Abstract]. A constituent material of the supporting member comprising aluminum, or alloys or intermetallic compounds containing at least one kind among these kinds of metal, or oxides of these kinds of metal may be exemplified. For example, as the alloys, stainless steel, inconel, and in addition to these, for example, various aluminum-based alloys such as duralumin may be exemplified [0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takamine’s supporting member with the teaching of Sakuma since such support structure is known in the art and it is well-known that aluminium alloy has a Young's modulus in a range of 60 GPa to 200 GPa.
Regarding Claim 73, the sensor package of Claim 72 is taught by Takamine in view of Michel, Barger and Sakuma.
Modified Takamine further teaches wherein the material has a density in a range of 2000 kg/m3 to 3000 kg/m3 (Sakuma teaches a module includes a sensor device, a mounting substrate that has a plurality of mounting faces, a portion between the mounting faces adjacent to each other being foldable, a supporting member having fixing faces, wherein the sensor device is mounted on at least one of the mounting faces, each of the mounting faces is disposed along each of the fixing faces, and the sensor device is disposed on the supporting member side [Abstract]. A constituent material of the supporting member comprising aluminum, or alloys or intermetallic compounds containing at least one kind among these kinds of metal, or oxides of these kinds of metal may be exemplified. For example, as the alloys, stainless steel, inconel, and in addition to these, for example, various aluminum-based alloys such as duralumin may be exemplified [0092]. It is well-known that aluminium alloy has a density in a range of 2000 kg/m3 to 3000 kg/m3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takamine’s supporting member with the teaching of Sakuma since such support structure is known in the art and it is well-known that aluminium alloy has a density in a range of 2000 kg/m3 to 3000 kg/m3).
Regarding Claim 74, the sensor package of Claim 73 is taught by Takamine in view of Michel, Barger and Sakuma.
Modified Takamine further teaches wherein the material comprises aluminum (Sakuma teaches a module includes a sensor device, a mounting substrate that has a plurality of mounting faces, a portion between the mounting faces adjacent to each other being foldable, a supporting member having fixing faces, wherein the sensor device is mounted on at least one of the mounting faces, each of the mounting faces is disposed along each of the fixing faces, and the sensor device is disposed on the supporting member side [Abstract]. A constituent material of the supporting member comprising aluminum, or alloys or intermetallic compounds containing at least one kind among these kinds of metal, or oxides of these kinds of metal may be exemplified. For example, as the alloys, stainless steel, inconel, and in addition to these, for example, various aluminum-based alloys such as duralumin may be exemplified [0092]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takamine’s supporting member with the teaching of Sakuma since such support structure is known in the art).
Claims 75-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamine in view of Michael, Barger and Morita et al. (US 2006/0110086 A1, “Morita”).
Regarding Claim 75, the sensor package of Claim 65 is taught by Takamine in view of Michael and Barger.
Modified Takamina does not teach the sensor package further comprising a filler material disposed in the cavity.
However, Morita teaches the sensor package further comprising a filler material disposed in the cavity [0254].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the filler material such as epoxy resin in Takamine’s cavity in order to provide a sealant and to provide strength.
Regarding Claim 76, the sensor package of Claim 75 is taught by Takamine in view of Michael, Barger and Morita.
Morita further teaches wherein the filler material comprises a non-conductive epoxy [0254].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the filler material such as epoxy resin in Takamine’s cavity in order to provide a sealant and to provide strength.
Regarding Claim 77, the sensor package of Claim 76 is taught by Takamine in view of Michael, Barger and Morita.
Takamine further teaches wherein the support structure includes an injection hole (fig.1-3; element 611h) for injecting the filler material (hole 611h could be used as an injection hole).
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamine in view of Michael and Matsumoto et al. (US 2021/0368625 A1, “Matsumoto”).
Regarding Claim 79, Takamine teaches a sensor package (fig.1-10) comprising: a support structure (3) configured to couple with a vibration source (4) by way of an adhesive portion (3); a cap (6) at least partially disposed over the support structure (shown in fig.1-6), the cap at least partially defining a cavity (shown in fig.1-6); a vibration sensor module (5) coupled to the support structure and disposed in the cavity (shown in fig.1-6 and discussed in [0021]); and a connector (a cable/connector is shown in fig.1-3) coupled to the support structure, the connector configured to connect to a connection line to electrically connect the vibration sensor module to an external substrate or system ([0055]; [0068] disclose power cable to/from the sensor housing).
Takamine does not teach – (i) a stud as support structure; and (ii) the vibration sensor being a microelectromechanical systems (MEMs) vibration sensor module.
As to (i), As to (i), Michael teaches an adjunct device for tracks time and/or dosage of a medicine comprising one or more vibration sensors [Abstract] wherein attachment between the injector and/or device may include a stud and/or an adhesive [0129].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takamine’s attachment with the teaching of Michael and replacing Takamine’s adhesive with Michael’s stud since this is a known alternative in the field of attachment, as depicted in Michael art, which would provide more strength to the sensor package.
As to (ii), Matsumoto teaches a device includes an enclosure assembly and a printed circuit board (PCB) assembly. The enclosure assembly includes a cap, a base mechanically coupled with the cap, and a support bracket mechanically coupled with the base. The PCB assembly includes a processor, a memory coupled with the processor, a first sensor electrically coupled with the processor, a second sensor electrically coupled with the processor, and a communication interface electrically coupled with the processor [Abstract]. The sensor being vibration sensors [0075]. The vibration sensor is a precision triaxial micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) accelerometer [0085].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takamine’s vibration sensor with the teaching of Matsumoto since this is a known vibration sensor which is operated with ultra-low power [0086].
Claim 80 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamine in view of Michael, Barger and Hynd et al. (US 8,179,121 B2, “Hynd”).
Regarding Claim 80, the sensor package of Claim 79 is taught by Takamine in view of Michael and Matsumoto.
Modified Takamine does not teach wherein the connector has an integrated electronics piezoelectric (IEPE) interface.
However, Hynd teaches a measuring device comprising a MEMS transducer, an amplification and filtering stage, and a two-wire interface of the IEPE type wherein the connector has an integrated electronics piezoelectric (IEPE) interface (col.8; lines11-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hynd’s IEPE interface in Takamine’s system since it ensures the static voltage operation point not varying analogously to the parameter to be measured, even if that parameter had significant static value.
Allowable Subject Matter
(i) Claim 66 and Claims 67-68 and 70-71 that are depended on claim 66, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
(ii) Claim 69 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
(iii) Claim 81 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Limitations of claims 66, 81 are the reasons for allowability.
(iv) Claims 82-84 are allowed.
With regard to Claim 82, the prior arts of the record do not teach or fairly suggest a sensor package comprising, in combination with the other recited elements, a support structure including a base and a carrier, the base having an upper side and a lower side, the carrier disposed on the upper side of the base, the base configured couple with a vibration source by way of a stud; a cap at least partially disposed over the upper side of the base, the carrier disposed in a cavity formed at least in part by the base and the cap.
Claims 83-84 are allowed by virtue of their dependence from Claim 82.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ivaska et al. (US 2021/0184385 A1) teaches an electronics assembly which includes a grounding connection, having a housing, a connector, a portion of the connector formed around the housing, a recess portion integrally formed as part of the connector, a substrate located in proximity to the connector, and circuitry mounted to the substrate such that the circuitry is at least partially disposed in a cavity formed as part of the connector [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855