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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
No argument was presented with RCE. Due to the new arts in recent IDS, previous Office Action (Allowance) is withdrawn, and new rejection is presented below.
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 65-67, 70-72 and 78-81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. (JPH 09178545A, cited by the applicants, “Hiroshi”) in view of Chien (US 2008/0230858 A1).
Regarding Claim 65, Hiroshi teaches a sensor package (Fig.1) comprising: a support structure (10, 12) configured to couple with a vibration source (40) by way of a stud (30); a cap (5) at least partially disposed over the support structure (10), the cap at least partially defining a cavity (shown in fig.1); and a vibration sensor module (13, 14) coupled to a portion of the support structure (via 12) and disposed in the cavity (shown in fgi.1), and wherein the support structure comprises a base (10) and a carrier (12), the base having an upper side and a lower side opposite to the upper side, the base configured to be coupled to the vibration source with the lower side facing the vibration source (shown in fig.1), and the carrier disposed on the upper side (shown in fig.1).
Hiroshi does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor package has a mechanical resonant frequency in a range of 0.1 Hz to 11 kHz.
However, Chein discloses that the acoustic microsensor utilized in real applications is easily to generate a resonant frequency in the hearing frequency range 20 Hz-20 KHz [0005]. Due to larger volume of the conventional package structure, the acoustic microsensor is easily to generate a resonant frequency in the hearing frequency range 20 Hz-20 KHz [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set up a sensor package with a mechanical resonance frequency in the range of 0.1 Hz to 11 kHz since such choice of a resonance frequency of a sensor package in that wide range is well-known in the art as disclosed in Chein art. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the sensor package with a mechanical resonant frequency in a range of 0.1 Hz to 11 kHz , since setting up the sensor package with the mechanical resonance frequency in that range is considered as the usual parameter choice for a person skilled in the art to improve the sensor detection range.
Regarding Claim 66, the sensor package of Claim 65 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein.
Hiroshi further teaches wherein the base (10) is configured to couple with the vibration source (40) by way of the stud (30) (shown in fig.1), the cap (5) is at least partially disposed over the upper side of the base (10) (shown in fig.1), the carrier (12) disposed in the cavity (shown in fig.1), and the vibration sensor module (13, 14) coupled to the carrier (12) (shown in fig.1).
Regarding Claim 67, the sensor package of Claim 66 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein.
Hiroshi further teaches wherein the cap (5) comprises a screw top, the upper side of the base comprises a threaded portion, and the screw top mates with the threaded portion to mechanically connect the cap and the base ([0016]: “metal case 15 is made of a highly corrosion-resistant metal material such as stainless steel and is screwed onto the outer threaded portion 10d of the base 10”).
Regarding Claim 70, the sensor package of Claim 66 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein.
Hiroshi further teaches wherein the stud (30) is configured to couple to the lower side of the base (10a) and extends vertically relative to the lower side of the base (shown in fig.1).
Regarding Claim 71, the sensor package of Claim 66 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein.
Hiroshi further teaches wherein the carrier (12) extends vertically from the upper side of the base (10) (shown in fig.1), and the vibration sensor module configured to sense vibration in a vertical direction ([0013], Fig.1).
Regarding Claim 72, the sensor package of Claim 65 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein.
Hiroshi further teaches wherein the support structure comprises a material that has a Young's modulus in a range of 60 GPa to 200 GPa (Hiroshi teaches that the metal base 10 is made of a highly corrosion-resistant metal material such as stainless steel [0013], and metal case 15 is made of a highly corrosion-resistant metal material such as stainless steel [0016]. It is known in the art that stainless steel has a Young's modulus in a range of 193 GPa to 200 GPa).
Regarding Claim 78, the sensor package of Claim 65 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein.
Hiroshi further teaches wherein the sensor package has a mechanical resonant frequency in a range of 5 kHz to 11 kHz.
However, Chein discloses that the acoustic microsensor utilized in real applications is easily to generate a resonant frequency in the hearing frequency range 20 Hz-20 KHz [0005]. Due to larger volume of the conventional package structure, the acoustic microsensor is easily to generate a resonant frequency in the hearing frequency range 20 Hz-20 KHz [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set up a sensor package with a mechanical resonance frequency in the range of 5 kHz to 11 kHz since such choice of a resonance frequency of a sensor package in that wide range is well-known in the art as disclosed in Chein art. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the sensor package with a mechanical resonant frequency in a range of 5 kHz to 11 kHz, since setting up the sensor package with the mechanical resonance frequency in that range is considered as the usual parameter choice for a person skilled in the art to improve the sensor detection range.
Regarding Claim 79, Hiroshi teaches a sensor package (Fig.1) comprising: a support structure (10, 12) configured to couple with a vibration source (40) by way of a stud (30); a cap (5) at least partially disposed over the support structure (10), the cap at least partially defining a cavity (shown in fig.1); a microelectromechanical systems (MEMs) vibration sensor module (13, 14) coupled to the support structure (via 12) and disposed in the cavity (shown in fig.1); and a connector (22) coupled to the support structure (via 10), the connector (22) configured to connect to a connection line (23) to electrically connect the vibration sensor module (13, 14) to an external substrate or system [0015],
Hiroshi does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor package has a mechanical resonant frequency in a range of 5 kHz to 11 kHz.
However, Chein discloses that the acoustic microsensor utilized in real applications is easily to generate a resonant frequency in the hearing frequency range 20 Hz-20 KHz [0005]. Due to larger volume of the conventional package structure, the acoustic microsensor is easily to generate a resonant frequency in the hearing frequency range 20 Hz-20 KHz [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set up a sensor package with a mechanical resonance frequency in the range of 5 kHz to 11 kHz since such choice of a resonance frequency of a sensor package in that wide range is well-known in the art as disclosed in Chein art. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the sensor package with a mechanical resonant frequency in a range of 5 kHz to 11 kHz, since setting up the sensor package with the mechanical resonance frequency in that range is considered as the usual parameter choice for a person skilled in the art to improve the sensor detection range.
Regarding Claim 80, the sensor package of Claim 79 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein.
Hiroshi further teaches wherein the connector has an integrated electronics piezoelectric (IEPE) interface (shown in fig.1 that the connector 22 has an integrated electronics piezoelectric (IEPE) interface at the junction with connection line 23).
Regarding Claim 81, the sensor package of Claim 79 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein.
Hiroshi further teaches wherein the support structure includes a base (10) and a carrier (12), the base having an upper side and a lower side (shown in fig.1), the carrier disposed on the upper side of the base (shown in fig.1), the base configured to couple with the vibration source by way of the stud (30) (shown in fig.1), the carrier (12) disposed in the cavity (shown in fig.1), the MEMs vibration sensor module coupled to the carrier (shown in fig.1), and the connector (22) coupled to the base (10) (shown in fig.1).
Claims 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi in view of Chein, and further in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0245053 A1, “Pedersen”).
Regarding Claim 68, the sensor package of Claim 66 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein.
Hiroshi does not explicitly teach wherein the vibration sensor module comprises a sensor die mounted to a substrate, and the substrate is positioned between the carrier and the sensor die.
However, Pedersen teaches a MEMS vibration sensor die can include a substrate having a top portion, a mounting surface, and an aperture extending at least partially through the substrate (“Abstract”, [0011], claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pedersen’s sensor die with substrate in the package of Hiroshi and placing the substrate between the carrier and the sensor die since such die is known the art which would provide robustness to the sensing module.
Regarding Claim 69, the sensor package of Claim 68 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein and Pedersen.
Pedersen further teaches wherein the sensor die comprises a microelectromechanical systems (MEMs) sensor die (“Abstract”, [0011], claim 14).
Claims 73-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi in view of Chien, and further in view of Lupfer et al. (US 2020/0368600 A1, “Lupfer”).
Regarding Claim 73, the sensor package of Claim 72 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein.
Hiroshi does not teach wherein the material has a density in a range of 2000 kg/m3 to 3000 kg/m3.
However, Lupfer teaches a sensor system wherein the sensor system may be enclosed into a sensor housing that may be made of plastic (e.g., polycarbonate-ABS), metal (e.g., steel, aluminum (Known in the art that - Aluminum has a Young's modulus of approximately 69–77 GPa and a density around 2700 Kg/m³), among other like metals), graphite or some combination of these materials [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirosi’s housing with the teaching of Lupfer since Lupfer’s Aluminium is a known alternative to Hiroshi’s steel in the field of sensor housing.
Regarding Claim 74, the sensor package of Claim 73 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein and Lupfer.
Lupfer further teaches wherein the material comprises aluminum [0039].
Claims 75-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi in view of Chein, and further in view of Mancini (US 2022/0074963 A1).
Regarding Claim 75, the sensor package of Claim 65 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein.
Hiroshi does not teach the sensor package further comprising a filler material disposed in the cavity.
However, Mancini teaches a sensor device comprising a filler material disposed in the cavity ([0028]; [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Mancini’s filler in the sensor package of Hiroshi since this would guarantees a degree of resistance to a water column or humidity [0030].
Regarding Claim 76, the sensor package of Claim 75 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein and Mancini.
Mancini further teaches wherein the filler material comprises a non-conductive epoxy [0115].
Regarding Claim 77, the sensor package of Claim 76 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Chein and Mancini.
Mancini further teaches wherein the support structure includes an injection hole (fig.2-3; element 4e) for injecting the filler material [0107].
Claims 82-84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi in view of Lupfer.
Regarding Claim 82, Hiroshi teaches a sensor package (Fig.1) comprising: a support structure (10, 12) including a base (10) and a carrier (12), the base having an upper side and a lower side (shown in fig.1), the carrier disposed on the upper side of the base (shown in fig.1), the base configured couple with a vibration source (40) by way of a stud (30); a cap (5) at least partially disposed over the upper side of the base (shown in fig.1), the carrier disposed in a cavity (shown in fig.1) formed at least in part by the base and the cap (shown in fig.1); and a microelectromechanical systems (MEMs) vibration sensor module (13, 14) coupled to the carrier (via 12) and disposed in the cavity (shown in fig.1). As to housing material, Hiroshi teaches that the metal base 10 is made of a highly corrosion-resistant metal material such as stainless steel [0013], and metal case 15 is made of a highly corrosion-resistant metal material such as stainless steel [0016].
Hiroshi does not teach wherein the support structure comprises a material that has a Young's modulus of at least 60 GPa and a density less than 3000 kg/m3.
However, Lupfer teaches a sensor system wherein the sensor system may be enclosed into a sensor housing that may be made of plastic (e.g., polycarbonate-ABS), metal (e.g., steel, aluminum (Known in the art that - Aluminum has a Young's modulus of approximately 69–77 GPa and a density around 2700 Kg/m³), among other like metals), graphite or some combination of these materials [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hirosi’s housing with the teaching of Lupfer since Lupfer’s Aluminium is a known alternative to Hiroshi’s steel in the field of sensor housing.
Regarding Claim 83, the sensor package of Claim 82 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Lupfer.
Hiroshi further teaches having an integrated electronics piezoelectric (IEPE) interface that includes a subminiature version A (SMA) connector coupled to the base and configured to electrically connect the MEMs vibration sensor module to an external substrate or system shown in fig.1 that the connector 22 has an integrated electronics piezoelectric (IEPE) interface at the junction with connection line 23).
Regarding Claim 84, the sensor package of Claim 83 is taught by Hiroshi in view of Lupfer.
Hiroshi further teaches wherein the vibration MEMs sensor module comprises a signal output terminal that is connected with the SMA connector by way of a signal line ([0015]: “A detection output connector (for example, a coaxial connector) 22 is fixed to one side of the lower part 10a of the base, and a lead wire 23 connected to one output end of each piezoelectric element 13 is connected to the output terminal 22a of the connector 22.”).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gooneratne et al. (US 2021/0189863 A1): Sensor compartment 24 can be formed of materials such as steel, titanium, silicon carbide, aluminum silicon carbide Inconel (Known in the art that - Aluminum–Silicon Carbide (Al–SiC) metal matrix composites: Density: ~2800–3000 Kg/m³ and Young’s modulus: ~115–150 GPa for common Al₇₅/SiC₂₅ to Al₆₀/SiC₄₀ compositions), and pyroflask to reduce the effect of high temperature encountered in downhole environments [0091].
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
Prosecution Insights