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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 9/4/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 appears to have a typographical error in line 2. The examiner respectfully suggests replacing “an” with -- a--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 4, 9-11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 7,992,445 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”).
As for claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a pressure sensor (Fig. 13), comprising:
[[an]] a polymer (col. 11, lines 52-53) body (201) defining a diaphragm (210);
and at least one conductive structure (203, 220) supported at least partially on the diaphragm of the body (see Fig. 13).
As for claim 2, Kobayashi discloses that the body includes at least one of an injection molded body (col. 4, lines 23-35), a 3D printed body, or a machined body.
As for claim 4, Kobayashi discloses that the body (201) comprises threads (213) for engaging with mating threads of an associated housing (col. 12, lines 34-41).
As for claim 9, Kobayashi discloses that the at least one conductive structure comprises at least metal (col. 11, line 66 - col. 12, line 3).
As for claim 10, Kobayashi discloses a method of forming a pressure sensor (Fig. 13), the method comprising:
forming a polymer (col. 11, lines 52-53) body (201) having a diaphragm (210); and
forming at least one conductive structure (203, 220) at least partially on the diaphragm of the body (see Fig. 13 and col. 11, line 56 - col. 12, line 3).
As for claim 11, Kobayashi discloses that forming the body includes at least one of injection molding a polymer material (col. 4, lines 23-35), 3D printing a polymer material, or machining a polymer material.
As for claim 19, Kobayashi discloses that forming the body comprises forming a cylindrical threaded body (see Fig. 13).
As for claim 20, Kobayashi discloses a body for a pressure sensor (see Fig. 13) comprising:
a polymer (col. 11, lines 53-53) body (201) having a diaphragm (210) for supporting a conductive structure (203, 220), and threads (213) for engaging mating threads of an associated housing.
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 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,992,445 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) in view of U.S. Patent 10,175,130 issued to Kollias (“Kollias”).
As for claim 3, Kobayashi discloses the pressure sensor according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Kobayashi dose not disclose that the at least one conductive structure comprises a Wheatstone bridge.
However, Kollias discloses at least one conductive structure (col. 20, lines 62-67) that comprises a Wheatstone bridge (1802; Fig. 18).
Kobayashi and Kollias included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the conductive structure of Kobayashi with the Wheatstone bridge of Kollias by attaching the conductive structure of Kobayashi as one of the arms of the Wheatstone bridge as suggested by Fig. 18 of Kollias, and that in combination, the conductive structure and Wheatstone bridge merely perform the same functions as each does separately. Therefore, 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 sensor of Kobayashi to include the Wheatstone bridge of Kollias in order to achieve the predictable result of providing an electronic circuit that can measure the capacitance of the conductive structure.
As for claim 15, Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Kobayashi dose not disclose that forming at least one conductive structure comprises forming a Wheatstone bridge.
However, Kollias discloses forming at least one conductive structure (col. 20, lines 62-67) comprises forming a Wheatstone bridge (1802; Fig. 18).
Kobayashi and Kollias included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the conductive structure of Kobayashi with the Wheatstone bridge of Kollias by attaching the conductive structure of Kobayashi as one of the arms of the Wheatstone bridge as suggested by Fig. 18 of Kollias, and that in combination, the conductive structure and Wheatstone bridge merely perform the same functions as each does separately. Therefore, 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 Kobayashi to include forming the Wheatstone bridge of Kollias in order to achieve the predictable result of providing an electronic circuit that can measure the capacitance of the conductive structure.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,992,445 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0271317 by Schlagmann et al. (“Schlagmann”).
As for claim 5, Kobayashi discloses the pressure sensor according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Kobayashi dose not disclose a capping layer covering at least a portion of the at least one conductive structure.
However, Schlagmann discloses a capping layer (39a) covering at least a portion of at least one conductive structure (33, 34).
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 sensor of Kobayashi to include the capping layer of Schlagmann in order to provide an element that can detect a property of a gas (Schlagmann: Abstract).
As for claim 16, Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Kobayashi dose not disclose forming a capping layer over at least a portion of the at least one conductive structure.
However, Schlagmann discloses forming a capping layer (39a) over at least a portion of the at least one conductive structure (33, 34).
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 Kobayashi to include forming the capping layer of Schlagmann in order to provide an element that can detect a property of a gas (Schlagmann: Abstract).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,992,445 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) in view of JP 2012-202786 by Sakuma (“Sakuma”).
As for claim 5, Kobayashi discloses the pressure sensor according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Kobayashi dose not disclose a capping layer covering at least a portion of the at least one conductive structure.
However, Sakuma discloses a capping layer (36) covering at least a portion of at least one conductive structure (28, 31).
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 sensor of Kobayashi to include the capping layer of Sakuma in order to protect the diaphragm form dust (Sakuma: see the paragraph beginning “Next, as shown in Fig. 13 …”).
As for claim 16, Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Kobayashi dose not disclose forming a capping layer over at least a portion of the at least one conductive structure.
However, Sakuma discloses forming a capping layer (36) covering at least a portion of at least one conductive structure (28, 31).
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 Kobayashi to include forming the capping layer of Sakuma in order to protect the diaphragm form dust (Sakuma: see the paragraph beginning “Next, as shown in Fig. 13 …”).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,992,445 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,473,991 issued to Alfaro (“Alfaro”).
As for claim 6, Kobayashi discloses the pressure sensor according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Kobayashi dose not disclose that the diaphragm comprises at least one stiffening structure.
However, Alfaro discloses a diaphragm (400) that comprises at least one stiffening structure (520, 530).
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 diaphragm of Kobayashi to include the at least one stiffening structure as disclosed by Alfaro in order to stiffen the diaphragm and direct strain toward the measuring structures on the diaphragm (Alfaro: col. 2, lines 25-27).
As for claim 7, Kobayashi as modified by Alfaro discloses that the at least one stiffening structure comprises a plurality of concentric circular ribs (Alfaro: col. 2, lines 49-52).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,992,445 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) in view of U.S. Patent 10,183,857 issued to Graham et al. (“Graham”).
As for claim 8, Kobayashi discloses the pressure sensor according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Kobayashi dose not disclose that the at least one conductive structure comprises at least one of a hysteresis compensator or a temperature compensator.
However, Graham discloses at least one conductive structure (132) that comprises at least one of a hysteresis compensator or a temperature compensator (col. 4, lines 17-20).
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 conductive structure of Kobayashi to include the temperature compensator as disclosed by Graham in order to increase the accuracy of the pressure sensor (Graham: col. 1, lines 28-37).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,992,445 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,269,452 issued to Rosenberg al. (“Rosenberg”).
As for claim 12, Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Kobayashi dose not disclose that forming at least one conductive structure comprises electrolessly depositing a metal on the body.
However, Rosenberg discloses that forming at least one conductive structure comprises electrolessly depositing a metal on the body.
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 Kobayashi by including electrolessly depositing as disclosed by Rosenberg in order to prevent oxidation of the conductive structure (Rosenberg: col. 4, lines 3-10).
As for claim 13, Kobayashi as modified by Rosenberg discloses that forming at least one conductive structure comprises removing a portion of the deposited metal from the body (Kobayashi: col. 11, lines 13-20).
As for claim 14, Kobayashi as modified by Rosenberg discloses that electrolessly depositing a metal comprises using an electroless nickel immersion gold process (Rosenberg: col. 4, lines 3-10).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,992,445 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0271317 by Schlagmann et al. (“Schlagmann”) as applied to claim 16, further in view of CN 104555896 by Liu et al. (“Liu”).
As for claim 17, Kobayashi as modified by Schlagmann discloses the method according to claim 16 (see the rejection of claim 16 above).
Kobayashi as modified by Schlagmann does not disclose creating an opening in the capping layer by removing a portion of the capping layer to expose a portion of the at least one conductive structure, and filling the opening with a conductive material.
However, Liu discloses (paragraph [0058]) creating an opening (140) in a capping layer (130) by removing a portion of the capping layer (130) to expose a portion of a at least one conductive structure (50), and filling the opening with a conductive material (150).
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 Kobayashi and Schlagmann by including the steps of creating an opening and filling as disclosed by Liu in order to create interconnects for the pressure sensor.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,992,445 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”) in view of JP 2012-202786 by Sakuma (“Sakuma”) as applied to claim 16, further in view of U.S. Patent 12,173,263 issued to Fernandez-Alcon et al. (“Fernandez-Alcon”).
As for claim 18, Kobayashi as modified by Sakuma discloses the method according to claim 16 (see the rejection of claim 16 above) and filling the opening (Sakuma: at 34 in Fig. 13) with a conductive material (Sakuma: 34).
Kobayashi as modified by Sakuma does not disclose that forming the capping layer comprises injection molding the capping layer with an opening exposing a portion of the at least one conductive structure. Instead, Sakuma discloses forming the protective film via photolithography (Sakuma: see descriptions of Figs. 3, 5, 7-13).
However, Fernandez-Alcon discloses forming a layer using injection molding rather than photolithography (col. 13, lines 17-28).
Because Sakuma and Fernandez-Alcon both describe techniques for forming a layer, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the injection molding of Fernandez-Alcon for the photolithography as disclosed by Sakuma to achieve the predictable result of providing a capping layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 10,060,815 issued to Kazama et al. (“Kazama”) is cited for all that it discloses including a pressure sensor with cylindrical body, a diaphragm and threads.
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