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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7-9, 11 and 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 12/27/2023, 1/30/2024, 9/4/2024 and 10/16/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a plurality of strain detecting elements recited in claim 1 and described in paragraph [0069].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 3,071,745 issued to Stedman (“Stedman”).
As for claim 1, Stedman discloses a sensor module (Fig. 7), comprising:
a diaphragm (26) including a first region (where r/a > 0.6) and a second region (radial stress null zone at r/a ≈ 0.6; col. 11, lines 30-32 and col. 7, lines 31-38), the second region including a position at which a strain that occurs by an effect of a physical quantity caused by a measurement target fluid is zero and having a smaller effect of the physical quantity caused by the measurement target fluid than the first region (radial stress null zone at r/a ≈ 0.6; col. 11, lines 30-32 and col. 7, lines 31-38);
a plurality of strain detecting elements (82, 84) disposed in the first region; and
an electric conductor (38, 40, 94) that is at least partially disposed in the second region and electrically couples the plurality of strain detecting elements to each other to configure a bridge circuit (Fig. 7 and col. 11, lines 30-32 and col. 11, lines 53-69), wherein
the electric conductor (38, 40, 94) comprises a resistance adjuster (38 and part of 94) at a position corresponding to the second region (i.e. 38 overlaps with r/a ≈ 0.6), the resistance adjuster being configured to adjust a resistance of the electric conductor (i.e. because 38 has an electrical resistance, however small).
As for claim 2, Stedman discloses that the strain detecting elements and the electric conductor are provided integrally (see Fig. 7), the strain detecting elements and the electric conductor being provided to have a ring shape (see Fig. 7).
As for claim 3, Stedman discloses that the effect of the strain caused by the measurement target fluid in the second region is less than or equal to one tenth of the effect in the first region (see Fig. 1).
As for claim 4, Stedman discloses that the resistance adjuster (38 and part of 94) comprises a groove (see the groove between 38 and 94 in Fig. 7) provided at a position corresponding to the second region in the electric conductor.
Claims 1-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 3,697,918 issued to Orth et al. (“Orth”).
As for claim 1, Orth discloses a sensor module (Fig. 1), comprising:
a diaphragm (10) including a first region (portion of 10 inside Z) and a second region (middle portion of 10 that includes Z), the second region including a position at which a strain that occurs by an effect of a physical quantity caused by a measurement target fluid is zero and having a smaller effect of the physical quantity caused by the measurement target fluid than the first region (col. 3, 19-32);
a plurality of strain detecting elements (R1-R4) disposed in the first region (see Fig. 1); and
an electric conductor (19-21) that is at least partially disposed in the second region (middle portion of 10 that includes Z) and electrically couples the plurality of strain detecting elements to each other to configure a bridge circuit (see Fig. 1), wherein
the electric conductor comprises a resistance adjuster (T1a, T1, T1b) at a position corresponding to the second region, the resistance adjuster being configured to adjust a resistance of the electric conductor (col. 3, lines 54-57).
As for claim 2, Orth discloses that the strain detecting elements and the electric conductor are provided integrally (see Fig. 1), the strain detecting elements and the electric conductor being provided to have a ring shape (i.e. a square ring, see Fig. 1).
As for claim 3, Orth discloses that the effect of the strain caused by the measurement target fluid in the second region is less than or equal to one tenth of the effect in the first region (col. 3, lines 19-32).
As for claim 4, Orth discloses that the resistance adjuster (T1a, T1, T1b) comprises a groove (e.g. the space between T1a and T1) provided at a position corresponding to the second region in the electric conductor (see Fig. 1).
As for claim 12, Orth discloses that
the resistance adjuster includes a plurality of resistance adjusters (T1a, T1, T1b and T3a, T3, T3b), and
the electric conductor comprises the plurality of resistance adjusters and a bypass (19), the bypass causing at least one of the plurality of resistance adjusters to be electrically bypassed by coupling a primary side and a secondary side of the at least one resistance adjuster to each other (see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record and the examiner’s knowledge does not disclose or suggest an electrode comprising a first electrode and a second electrode, the first electrode being disposed on a diaphragm and formed from Au, the second electrode being stacked on the first electrode and formed from Au, wherein an electric conductor comprises a coupling portion and an extended portion, the coupling portion electrically coupling a plurality of strain detecting elements to each other, the extended portion being extended from the coupling portion and electrically coupling the coupling portion and the first electrode to each other, at least a portion of the first electrode is stacked on the extended portion, and a diffusion portion is provided at at least a portion in a depth direction of a location where the first electrode and the extended portion are stacked on each other, the diffusion portion having, in atomic percentage, greater than 60% of Au and greater than 10% of Cr.
Claims 6 and 10 depend on claim 5 and inherit the same allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 5,349,867 issued to Park (“Park”) is cited for all that it discloses including a diaphragm with strain detecting elements and an electric conductor with a resistance adjuster.
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