DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment of June 29, 2026 is considered herein.
Claims 40, 42, and 55-57 have been amended.
Claims 1-34 have been cancelled.
Claims 35-68 are pending with claims 45, and 63-68 being withdrawn to nonelected groups.
Claims 35-44, and 46-62 are considered on the merits herein.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are addressed within two interpretations. Firstly, as in the rejection of EHRENPFORDT et al, the two functional cells are interpreted to comprise overlapping and non-overlapping cell types and multiple types within each housing. Secondly, as in the rejection of NAKATA, the two functional cells are interpreted to comprise the same cell types with multiple types within each housing. Terms like “individualization” at the top of page 5 of the instant specification seem to indicate the intent for each cell in the instant application to be of one type, but this is not claimed as of yet. The prior art does not reflect a plurality of functional cells wherein multiple types are present in the microsystem, but each cell consists of only one cell type.
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) 35-37, 42, 44, 46, 47, and 51-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EHRENPFORDT et al (US PG PUB 2016/0011020A1).
Regarding claim 35, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches a microsystem (figure 8) comprising a plurality of functional cells (within 100) with at least one functional cell of a first cell type (102, sensor, paragraph [0030], energy consuming and/or an energy store, paragraph [0015] reading on energy storing and/or 104, electrical circuit, paragraph [0028] energy conducting) and at least one functional cell of a second cell type (106, photovoltaic cell, paragraph [0031], energy generating, and/or also energy conducting due to the PCB of 202) different to the first cell type (the first functional cell type is interpreted to be the result of a first functional cell type/sensor and/or storage component and the second functional cell type is interpreted to be the result of a second functional cell type/photovoltaic. To be clear, as currently written each cell is not limited to only one cell type per cell.), wherein the plurality of functional cells is at least partially electrically coupled to each other (shown coupled together in figures 2 and 3 to be coupled electrically via wiring or physically in that housing 204/206 (1st functional cell) is coupled to housing 202/200 (2nd functional cell)),
wherein each functional cell comprises:
- a housing of an electrically insulating material (1st cell, 206 potting compound, 2nd cell, 202 PCB, wherein PCB is a known laminate including insulating material), the housings of each two functional cells of a different cell type having the same dimensions (shown to have the same dimensions in the stack of figures 2 and 3);
- at least one first electrical connection area (1st cell – 218, 2nd cell - 214) and at least one second electrical connection area (1st cell – a different 218, 2nd cell - opposite 214) ; and
- a functional element (1st cell – 104 or 102, 2nd cell - 106) arranged inside the housing (1st cell - material of 108, 2nd cell – within edges 112) with electrical connection of the at least one first electrical connection area and the at least one second electrical connection area (see figures 2 or 3).
Regarding claim 36, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches the plurality of functional cells are arranged adjacent to each other in a first plane (vertical plane, see figures 2/3).
Regarding claim 37, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches first subset of the plurality of functional cells are arranged adjacent to each other in a first plane (vertical relative to each other in figures 2/3), and a second subset of the plurality of functional cells are arranged in a second plane parallel to the first plane (figure 8, arranged relative to each other).
Regarding claim 42, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches a subset of the plurality of functional cells arranged adjacent to each other have the same cell type (consistent with the interpretation of claim 35 when both the first and second cells are energy consuming).
Regarding claim 44, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches the at least one first electrical connection area and the at least one second electrical connection area of each functional cell is formed with solder bumps (208), and the opposing solder bumps of two adjacent functional cells are soldered together (paragraph [0033], wherein the connections which look like 208 are all interpreted to be solder and/or soldered intersections between the first and second cells or individual components).
Regarding claim 46, as identified in the rejection of claim 35, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches the functional element of at least one of the plurality of functional cells comprises at least one of the following:- an electrical conductor in the case of the cell type being of an electrical energy conducting cell;- a photocell in the case of the cell type being of an electric energy generating cell; - an accumulator, in particular a p-accumulator, in the case of the cell type being an electric energy storing cell (paragraph [0015]);- a capacitor in the case of the cell type being an electric energy storing cell (paragraph [0015]);- an optoelectronic semiconductor component, in particular an LED or p-LED or a sensor or p-sensor in the case of the cell type being of an electrical energy consuming cell; and - an integrated circuit, in particular p-IC, in the case of the cell type being of an electric energy consuming cell.
Regarding claim 47, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches the functional element of at least one of the plurality of functional cells does not exceed a size of 100 µm x 100 µm x 100 µm (paragraph [0007] teaches the sensor to be a MEMS sensor element, indicative of a micron sized sensor element which would be smaller in size than that claimed).
Regarding claim 51, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches the at least one first electrical connection area and the at least one second electrical connection area of each functional cell is formed with solder bumps (208) and each comprise a solder bump arranged on the housing (paragraph [0033], wherein the connections which look like 208 are all interpreted to be solder and/or soldered intersections between the first and second cells or individual components, indicative of a side or surface of the housing in figures 2 or 3).
Regarding claim 52, EHRENPFORDT et al shows a solder wetting area (216) on the housing in the region of each solder bump (214) is smaller than the solder bump (214) arranged on the housing (202) (see figure 3).
Regarding claims 53 and 54, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches a plurality of electrical connections on different sides of the housing (both sides top/bottom and right/left would read on the different sides) comprises at least one third and at least one fourth electrical connection area, wherein the at least one third and the at least one fourth electrical connection area are arranged in particular on two opposite outer surfaces of the housing and at least one fifth and at least one sixth electrical connection area, wherein the at least one fifth and the at least one sixth electrical connection area are arranged in particular on two opposite outer surfaces of the housing. (in the 1st cell, 3rd-6th are a different wire and connection of 218 (wherein figure 8 shows multiple which can read on these), wherein the opposing outer surfaces are the external left or right components, in the 2nd cell, 3rd -6th are different wires 216 at opposing ends, wherein the outer surfaces are top and bottom).
Regarding claim 55, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches at least one of the plurality of functional cells is of the cell type of an electric energy conducting cell (interpreted to be cell 200/202), and the functional element comprises at least one electric conductor (216) electrically connecting the at least one first and/or the at least one second (connection area is interpreted to be contact pads 214 on each end) (see figure 2) electric connection area.
Regarding claim 56, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches at most one of the at least one first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth electrical connection areas (contact pads 214, at the interface of both cells) is disposed on each outer surface of the housing of at least one of the plurality of functional cells (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 57, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches at least two of the at least one first, third and fifth or the at least one second, fourth and sixth electrical connection areas (contact pads 214, at the interface of both cells) are arranged on at least one outer surface of the housing of at least one of the plurality of functional cells see figure 2).
Regarding claims 58 and 59, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches the housing (exterior edge of 200 and 204) of at least one of the plurality of functional cells (200/204) is rotationally symmetric along at least one axis or mirror symmetric along at least one plane (cross-section is a square, 3D shaping is a cuboid as shown in figure 8, therefore the housing shape is symmetrical along an axis or plane).
Regarding claim 60, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches the housing of at least one of the plurality of functional cells comprises any one of the following materials:- epoxy resin;- silicone;- acrylic;- PET;- PE;- a thermoplastic;- a thermoset;- AL2O3;- AlN;- glass; and – ceramics (paragraph [0010] teaches the housing (204) to be made of thermoplastic).
Regarding claim 61, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches at least one of the plurality of functional cells comprises an adhesive layer covering at least one outer surface of the housing (paragraph [0033] teaches the use of adhesive to bond the photovoltaic to the recess of the housing).
Regarding claim 62, EHRENPFORDT et al teaches the at least one first electrical connection area and the at least one second electrical connection area of at least one of the plurality of functional cells are arranged in particular on two opposite outer surfaces of the housing (in the 1st cell, first electrical connection areas of 218 (wherein figure 8 shows multiple which can read on these), wherein the opposing outer surfaces are the external left or right components, in the 2nd cell, second electrical connection area 216 at opposing ends, wherein the outer surfaces are top and bottom).
Claim(s) 35, 36, 42, 46, 50, 55, 58-60, and 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NAKATA (US PG PUB 2010/0219423).
Regarding claim 35, NAKATA et al teaches a microsystem (figures 12-14 and 19-21, wherein components have a micron sizing (paragraph [0087], like .1mm = 100 micron) reading on a microsystem) comprising a plurality of functional cells (40/60 is a single cell capable connectivity with another forming a plurality, see paragraph [0131]) with at least one functional cell (40/60) of a first cell type (either electrical power generation via solar battery (paragraph [0011]), electrical power consumption via LED (paragraph [0012]) and/or electrical conducting cell via “conductive connection mechanisms” as discussed in the abstract) and at least one functional cell (40/60) of a second cell type (40/60 is a single cell capable connectivity with another forming a plurality, see paragraph [0131]) with at least one functional cell (40/60) of a first cell type (either electrical power generation via solar battery (paragraph [0011]), electrical power consumption via LED (paragraph [0012]) and/or electrical conducting cell via “conductive connection mechanisms” as discussed in the abstract) different to the first cell type (both cells comprise cell types which are different, i.e. the energy consumption of the first cell is different than the energy conduction functionality of the second cell, also see paragraph [0111]),
wherein the plurality of functional cells is at least partially electrically coupled to each other (coupled as discussed in paragraph [0131]),
wherein each functional cell (40/60) comprises:
- a housing (45/63) of an electrically insulating material (paragraph [0119] polycarbonate plates or paragraph [0151] synthetic resin, wherein polycarbonates and synthetic resins are a known insulators), the housings of each two functional cells of a different cell type having the same dimensions (since the cells are duplicates, this would necessarily be true);
- at least one first electrical connection area (43/51/76) and at least one second electrical connection area (43/51/74 of the opposing side) (paragraph [0131]); and
- a functional element (10 for the solar cell and LED, 66/67 for the electrical connector) arranged inside the housing (45/63) with electrical connection of the at least one first electrical connection area (51/76) and the at least one second electrical connection area (51/76 of the opposing ends).
Regarding claim 36, NAKATA teaches the plurality of functional cells (40/60) are arranged adjacent to each other in a first plane (wherein connection via paragraph [0131] and the protruding and recessed connectors is horizontal or linear in a single plane).
Regarding claim 42, since NAKATA teaches the same cell type to also be present in the adjacent cells, NAKATA teaches a subset of the plurality of functional adjacent cells have the same cell type.
Regarding claim 46, NAKATA teaches the functional element of at least one of the plurality of functional cells comprises at least one of the following, as described in the rejection of claim 35):- an electrical conductor in the case of the cell type being of an electrical energy conducting cell (abstract);- a photocell in the case of the cell type being of an electric energy generating cell (paragraph [0011]);- a solar cell, in particular p-solar cell, in the case of the cell type being of an electric energy generating cell(paragraph [0011]); - an optoelectronic semiconductor component, in particular an LED (paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 50, NAKATA teaches the at least one first electrical connection area (76) and the at least one second electrical connection area (51/76) of at least one of the plurality of functional cells each have a roughened or spiked surface outside the housing (the protruding component 51/76 of the electrical connection area reads on a spiked surface)(see figures 12 or 19).
Regarding claim 55, NAKATA teaches at least one of the plurality of functional cell (40/60) is of the cell type of an electric energy conducting cell (abstract, “conductive connection mechanism”), and the functional element (10) comprises at least one electric conductor (42/66/67) electrically connecting the at least one first and/or the at least one second electric connection area (paragraph [0126]).
Regarding claim 58, NAKATA teaches the housing (45/63) of at least one of the plurality of functional cells is rotationally symmetric along at least one axis or mirror symmetric along at least one plane (shown as symmetrical plates in figures 12 and 18 with multiple axis and planes of symmetry including the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 59, NAKATA teaches the housing (45/63) of at least one of the plurality of functional cells (40/60) comprises cuboid (see figure 12).
Regarding claim 60, NAKATA teaches the housing (45) of at least one of the plurality of functional cells (40/60) comprises a thermoplastic (polycarbonate).
Regarding claim 62, NAKATA teaches the at least one first electrical connection area (43/51/74) and the at least one second electrical connection area (43/51/74 of the opposing side) of at least one of the plurality of functional cells (40/60, when a plural of each unit is used) are arranged in particular on two opposite outer surfaces of the housing (see figure 12).
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) 43 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKATA, in view of NAKATA ‘392 (KR 10-2008-0097392, wherein citations are from the English machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claims 43 and 48, NAKATA teaches the at least one first electrical connection area (43/51/76) and the at least one second electrical connection area (43/51/76 of the opposing ends) of each functional cell to have a spring to use mechanical pressing force to ensure connection between components (abstract) at each end of the cells (opposing springs of adjacent cells are in connection via terminal 51 and recessed portion still held by a spring, see figures 12 and 21) and projecting from housing portion (wherein the connection area of spring 43 and terminal 51 extends beyond the housing, see figure 12), but NAKATA fails to teach the use of a leaf spring.
NAKATA ‘392 teaches a plurality of semiconductor components held in contact via a spring (abstract), just as in NAKATA. NAKATA ‘392 further teaches the use of a leaf spring to provide the pressing force and electrical connectivity between the cells and housing, preventing deviation(the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 and the 4th full paragraph of page 7).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the leaf spring of NAKATA ‘392 for the corrugated spring of NAKATA so as to provide the same pressure between adjacent semiconductor materials and cause consistent electrical connectivity with prevented positional deviation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38-41 and 49 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.
Claims 38-41 read free of the prior art. The closest prior art includes EHRENPFORDT et al and newly cited KALKANOGLU et al (US PG PUB 2011/0132427) show the use of functional cells (312a/b) in conjunction with non-electric cells (314a/b) of the same dimension, within individual cell housings (molded portions which receive the cells) wherein each cell (312a/b) includes both an electrical energy generating component (solar cell) and an electrical energy conducting component (the electric wiring necessarily present within the solar cell) reading on claim 35. However, while KALKANOGLU et al teaches this functionality, the device is far from the “microsystem” of the claim 35, rendering the combination of the microsystem with the listed functional cells of the claim, in conjunction with the non-electric cells of claim 38, as reading free of the prior art.
Claim 49 reads free of the prior art. The closest prior art includes NAKATA and NAKATA ‘392 however both references teach away from the use of a solder coating by reciting the benefit of not using solder within the device (1st full paragraph of page 4 of NAKATA ‘392, paragraph [0013] of NAKATA). For this reason, the prior art reads free of a device comprising the limitations of claims 35, 38 and the leaf springs comprise a coating of gold or a solder compound.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Starting on page 13, the Applicant argues Ehrenpfordt fails to teach the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of page 14 argues Ehrenpfordt teaches “a single integrated sensor device with one housing 108 containing multiple components, not a microsystem comprising a plurality of discrete functional cells each having its own housing”.
Firstly, the claim does not require discrete functional cells, but rather a microsystem which comprises a pair of functional cells with their own housings. Further, while 108 is a shared housing, the claim does not remove the interpretation where the pottant material surrounding the cells themselves is a housing which houses the cell materials or require a different meaning to housing.
The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of page 14 argue Ehrenpfordt does not teach the housings to have the same dimensions, more specifically that the cells are all identical and house multiple components and not a “modular microsystem in which heterogenous functional cells share uniform housing dimensions so that they can be freely combined and interchanged”.
The claim as written requires a microsystem comprising cells with include different cell types, but not limited to a single cell type. The claim does not limit the cells to only have one cell type in each housing but rather that the cells need to each have at least one cell type (“comprising”), also consistent with the rejection of Nakata. The stacked device of Ehrenpfordt does have shared dimensions (figures 2 and 3), where their stacked format requires a shared footprint of identical dimensions. For this reason, while the Applicant may read the claim as limited to “a modular microsystem” which can be freely changed, the claim as currently written is not limited to this stringent definition as such. To be clear, the Examiner clearly sees the difference between the instant application’s design and the applied art, but the claim is both not restricted to a single cell type per cell nor indicative of an arrangement of these devices in a single plane, freely combinable or interchangeable, as previously and currently stated in the Claim Interpretation section above as well.
Starting on page 15, the Applicant argues Nakata fails to teach the claimed invention.
The first paragraph of page 16 argues Nakata teaches only one kind of functional category.
Claim 1 of Nakata teaches the module can be at least light receivers or light emitters, which equates to two different functional categories.
The second paragraph of page 16 argues connection mechanisms 66/67 are not functional cells with housings but electrical conductors connecting solar battery cells, thus concluding that “these conductive wires are not functional cells with housings of the same dimensions as the solar battery cells”.
This argument is unclear. As defined in the rejection, the cell is interpreted as 10 with wiring 66/67 connecting the cells, wherein a duplicate cell (10) will absolutely have the same dimensions. The wiring is that which connects the neighboring cells reads on the electrical connection areas. It is unclear how the Applicant has interpreted this to require the wires are not cells with housings of the same dimensions.
The Applicant argues, in the 3rd-5th paragraphs of page 16, that Nakata only discusses LED or solar batteries, not combining other cell types in paragraph [0120].
Paragraph [0120] does not discuss LED systems at all, but paragraphs [0111] and [0133] teaches the use of the LEDs or batteries installed beside the cells “to constitute an indicator in which the LEDs emit light using the generated power” (indicative of a combination of multiple cell types), the use of a “hybridized” solar battery with LEDs and sensor elements (indicative of multiple cell types) and the use of battery cells and LEDs (indicative of multiple cell types). It is unclear why the Applicant has read Nakata in this restrictive capacity based on their citation.
In addition to the currently applied rejection, Nakata reads on the instant claim when the entirety of the device (40/60) is duplicated, a single cell (10) present in a first device is interpreted as a first functional cell and a single cell in the duplicated device is interpreted as the second functional cell, each within their own housings (40/45) of duplicate size, each featuring different cell types (see paragraph [0111] and [0131]). Again, this could be overcome by requiring a single cell of a single type in each functional cell.
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 KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights