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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the establishment" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites that “the pressure sensor signal is evaluated differently in the second pressure range by applying a different weighting factor or parameter than in the first pressure range” in lines 15-17 This limitation is unclear because it states a function (evaluating differently by applying a different weighting factor) without providing any indication about how the function is performed or what structure performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim (i.e. the first membrane, the first cavity and the first and second contact elements), so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply the result of operating the apparatus in a certain manner.
Claims 15-18 depend on claim 14 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Claim 19 recites a similar limitation to claim 14 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 20-23 depend on claim 19 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Claim 24 recites that “the pressure sensor signal is evaluated differently in the second pressure range by applying a different weighting factor or parameter than in the first pressure range” in lines 16-18. It is not clear if this limitation is a positively recited step in the method of claim 24 or if it is the result of previously recited steps.
Claims 25 and 26 depend on claim 24 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 14-18, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,647,795 issued to Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”).
As for claim 14, Suzuki discloses a micromechanical pressure sensor element (Figs. 1-5) for capturing a pressure sensor signal, using capacitive pressure capture, comprising:
a first membrane (184, 192) movable based on an applied pressure;
a first cavity (182) located below the first membrane with a cavity bottom, wherein a pressure of a medium applied to the first membrane bends the first membrane in a direction of the cavity bottom (col. 6, line 64 - col. 7, line 14);
at least one first contact element (142a) which is directly or indirectly connected to the first membrane; and
at least one second contact element (142b) which is directly or indirectly connected to the cavity bottom;
wherein an establishment of an electrical contact between the first and the second contact element is effected based on a specified first pressure (P1) being applied to the first membrane (col. 7, lines 15-18),
wherein the establishment of the electrical contact is configured to detect a transition from a first pressure range to a second pressure range (col. 7, lines 15-18), and wherein the pressure sensor signal is evaluated differently in the second pressure range by applying a different weighting factor or parameter than in the first pressure range (col. 8, lines 29-32).
As for claim 15, Suzuki discloses a first spacer element (196) which is connected directly or indirectly to the first membrane (184, 192), wherein the first contact element (142a) is arranged on the first spacer element (196), on a side of the first spacer element facing away from the first membrane (see Fig. 4).
As for claim 16, Suzuki discloses a second spacer element (180) which is connected to the cavity bottom, wherein the second contact element (142b) is arranged on the second spacer element (180), on a side of the second spacer element facing away from the cavity bottom (see Fig. 4).
As for claim 17, Suzuki discloses that the pressure capture is effected using a capture of a capacitance change of two electrodes (col. 6, line 64 - col. 7, line 14), wherein a first electrode (122a) of the two electrodes is provided directly or indirectly on the first membrane, and a second electrode (122b) of the two electrodes is provided on the cavity bottom, wherein the first contact element is arranged laterally on the first electrode (see Fig. 4) and/or the second contact element is arranged laterally on the second electrode.
As for claim 18, Suzuki discloses that the first membrane has at least two different pressure-dependent movements (see Fig. 12), wherein the first membrane has a first pressure dependency in a first pressure range until the first pressure (P1) is reached (see Fig. 12), and a second pressure dependency above the first pressure in a second pressure range, wherein the second pressure dependency is present until a second pressure (P2) applied to the first membrane is reached (see Fig. 12).
As for claim 24, Suzuki discloses a method for generating a pressure sensor signal using at least one pressure sensor element or a pressure sensor system including the at least one pressure sensor element, wherein the pressure sensor element includes:
at least one movable membrane (184, 192) which exhibits a movement based on a pressure (col. 6, line 64 - col. 7, line 14);
at least one first contact element (142a) which is directly or indirectly connected to the movable membrane; and
at least one second contact element (142b) which establishes an electrical contact with the first contact element upon a predetermined movement of the membrane (col. 7, lines 15-18);
wherein the method includes at least two operating modes, the method comprising:
in a first operating mode, generating the pressure sensor signal based on a first pressure-dependent movement of the at least one membrane (col. 6, line 64 - col. 7, line 14); and
in a second operating mode, generating the pressure sensor signal based on a detected electrical contact and a second pressure-dependent movement of the at least one membrane (col. 7, lines 15-18),
wherein the establishment of the electrical contact is configured to detect a transition from a first pressure range to a second pressure range (col. 7, lines 15-18), and wherein the pressure sensor signal is evaluated differently in the second pressure range by applying a different weighting factor or parameter than in the first pressure range (col. 8, lines 29-32).
As for claim 25, Suzuki discloses that the method has at least one further operating mode, with which the pressure sensor signal is generated in addition to the pressure-dependent movement of the at least one membrane based on a further electrical contact of further contact elements (col. 7, lines 28-31).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,647,795 issued to Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”).
As for claim 19, Suzuki discloses a pressure sensor system, comprising:
at least one micromechanical pressure sensor element for capturing a pressure sensor signal, using capacitive pressure capture, including:
a first membrane (184, 192) movable based on an applied pressure,
a first cavity (182) located below the first membrane with a cavity bottom, wherein a pressure of a medium applied to the first membrane bends the first membrane in a direction of the cavity bottom (col. 6, line 64 - col. 7, line 14),
at least one first contact element (142a) which is directly or indirectly connected to the first membrane, and
at least one second contact element (142b) which is directly or indirectly connected to the cavity bottom,
wherein an establishment of an electrical contact between the first and the second contact element is effected based on a specified first pressure (P1) being applied to the first membrane (col. 7, lines 15-18);
Suzuki does not disclose a second micromechanical pressure sensor element as recited.
However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to duplicate the at least one micromechanical pressure sensor element of Suzuki to achieve the predictable result of providing a second pressure sensor to sense a second pressure.
Suzuki as modified above discloses a second micromechanical pressure sensor element, including:
a second membrane (184, 192) movable based on an applied pressure,
a second cavity (182) located below the second membrane, with a cavity bottom, wherein a pressure of a medium applied to the second membrane bends the second membrane in a direction of the cavity bottom of the second cavity (col. 6, line 64 - col. 7, line 14), and the second micromechanical pressure sensor element,
at least one third contact element (152a) which is directly or indirectly connected to the second membrane, and
a fourth contact element (152b) which is directly or indirectly connected to the cavity bottom of the second cavity,
wherein electrical contact is made between the third and fourth contact elements based on a specified third pressure (P2) being applied to the second membrane (col. 7, lines 28-31),
wherein the establishment of the electrical contact is configured to detect a transition from a first pressure range to a second pressure range (col. 7, lines 15-18), and wherein the pressure sensor signal is evaluated differently in the second pressure range by applying a different weighting factor or parameter than in the first pressure range (col. 8, lines 29-32).
As for claim 20, Suzuki as modified above discloses that the second micromechanical pressure sensor element has a third spacer element (196), which is connected directly or indirectly to the second membrane (184, 192), wherein the third contact element (142a) is arranged on the third spacer element (196), on a side of the third spacer element facing away from the second membrane.
As for claim 21, Suzuki discloses that a pressure detection of the second micromechanical pressure sensor element is effected by detection of a capacitance change of two electrodes (col. 6, line 64 - col. 7, line 14), wherein a third electrode (122a) of the two electrodes is provided directly or indirectly on the second membrane and a fourth electrode (122b) of the two electrodes is provided on the cavity bottom of the second cavity, wherein the third contact element is arranged laterally on the third electrode (see Fig. 4) and/or the fourth contact element is arranged laterally on the fourth electrode.
As for claim 22, Suzuki as modified above discloses that the first (P1) and the third (P2) pressures are different (see Fig. 12).
Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,647,795 issued to Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,046,575 issued to Marsh (“Marsh”).
As for claim 23, Suzuki as modified above discloses the pressure sensor system according to claim 19 (see the rejection of claim 19 above).
Suzuki as modified above does not explicitly disclose that pressure-dependent movements of the first and second membranes are different in at least one pressure range.
However, Marsh discloses that pressure-dependent movements of the first and second membranes are different in at least one pressure range (implied by using membranes having different stiffnesses so that different pressure ranges can be detected; col. 12, lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the pressure-dependent movements of the first and second membranes of Suzuki to be different as suggested by Marsh in order to allow high sensitivity over broader ranges of pressure (Marsh: col. 12, lines 3-5).
As for claim 26, Suzuki discloses the method according to claim 24 (see the rejection of claim 24 above).
Suzuki does not disclose that the pressure signal is generated in at least two operating modes based on pressure-dependent movements of two different membranes.
However, Marsh discloses a pressure signal that is generated in at least two operating modes (a low pressure mode that deforms one membrane and a high pressure mode that deforms both membranes) based on pressure-dependent movements of two different membranes (Figs. 2 and 2A and col. 9, lines 6-22).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Suzuki to generate the pressure signal as disclosed by Marsh in order to allow high sensitivity over broader ranges of pressure (Marsh: col. 12, lines 3-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Suzuki does not disclose the newly added claim language. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Suzuki discloses the newly added claim language at least in col. 8, lines 29-32.
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 JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights