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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites that “at least one of the surface structures comprises alternating ridges and recesses” in lines 3-4. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation includes an embodiment in which the inner surface structure comprises alternating ridges and recesses. However, the drawings and specification do not disclose an embodiment in which the inner surface structure comprises alternating ridges and recesses. Therefore, the original disclosure does not support that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Claim 10 recites that “at least one of the surface structures comprises alternating ridges and recesses” in lines 4-5. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation includes an embodiment in which the inner surface structure comprises alternating ridges and recesses. However, the drawings and specification do not disclose an embodiment in which the inner surface structure comprises alternating ridges and recesses. Therefore, the original disclosure does not support that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 11-19 depend on claim 10 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Claim 20 recites that “at least one of the surface structures comprises alternating ridges and recesses” in lines 6-7. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation includes an embodiment in which the inner surface structure comprises alternating ridges and recesses. However, the drawings and specification do not disclose an embodiment in which the inner surface structure comprises alternating ridges and recesses. Therefore, the original disclosure does not support that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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 and 9-11 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 (Figs. 9-12), comprising:
a polymer (col. 7, lines 57-61) body (101) defining a diaphragm (105) having inner (ridges of 121 beneath 107a, 107b) and outer (ridges of 121 beneath 108a, 108b) surface structures on a first side (bottom of 105 in Fig. 9), wherein at least one of the surface structures comprises alternating ridges and recesses (see Fig. 11);
and at least one conductive structure (107a, 107b, 108a, 108b) supported at least partially by at least one of the inner or outer surface structures on the diaphragm of the body (col. 11, lines 13-20; see Fig. 12).
As for claim 2, Kobayashi discloses that the body includes at least one of an injection molded body (col. 9, lines 55-60), a 3D printed body, or a machined body.
As for claim 9, Kobayashi discloses that the at least one conductive structure comprises at least metal (col. 8, lines 9-15).
As for claim 10, Kobayashi discloses a method of forming a pressure sensor (Figs. 9-12), the method comprising:
forming a polymer (col. 7, lines 57-61) body (101) having a diaphragm (105) having inner (ridges of 121 beneath 107a, 107b) and outer (ridges of 121 beneath 108a, 108b) surface structures on a first side (bottom of 105 in Fig. 9), wherein at least one of the surface structures comprises alternating ridges and recesses (see Fig. 11); and
forming at least one conductive structure (107a, 107b, 108a, 108b) at least partially supported by at least one of the inner or outer surface structures on the diaphragm of the body (col. 11, lines 13-20; see Fig. 12).
As for claim 11, Kobayashi discloses that forming the body includes at least one of injection molding a polymer material (col. 9, lines 55-60), 3D printing a polymer material, or machining a polymer material.
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 does 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 does 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 4, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,992,445 issued to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”).
As for claim 4, Kobayashi discloses the pressure sensor according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Kobayashi does not disclose that the body comprises threads for engaging with mating threads of an associated housing. Instead, Kobayashi (Fig. 9) discloses an elastic member (106) that engages with an associated housing and provides a seal with the associated housing.
However, Kobayashi also discloses a body (2; Fig. 1) that comprises threads (3a) for engaging with mating threads of an associated housing along with a seal (12) that provides a seal with the associated housing.
Because Kobayashi discloses different embodiments with structures that engage with an associated housing and provides a seal with the associated housing, 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 structures of one embodiment for another embodiment to achieve the predictable result of providing structures that engage with the associated housing and provide a seal with the associated housing.
As for claim 19, Kobayashi discloses the method according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above) including forming a cylindrical body (103).
Kobayashi does not disclose that the body comprises threads for engaging with mating threads of an associated housing. Instead, Kobayashi (Fig. 9) discloses an elastic member (106) that engages with an associated housing and provides a seal with the associated housing.
However, Kobayashi also discloses a body (2; Fig. 1) that comprises threads (3a) for engaging with mating threads of an associated housing along with a seal (12) that provides a seal with the associated housing.
Because Kobayashi discloses different embodiments with structures that engage with an associated housing and provides a seal with the associated housing, 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 structures of one embodiment for another embodiment to achieve the predictable result of providing structures that engage with the associated housing and provide a seal with the associated housing.
As for claim 20, Kobayashi discloses a body (101; Figs. 9-12) for a pressure sensor comprising:
a polymer (col. 7, lines 57-61) body (101) defining a diaphragm (105) for supporting a conductive structure (107a, 107b), wherein the diaphragm includes inner (ridges of 121 beneath 107a, 107b) and outer (ridges of 121 beneath 108a, 108b) surface structures on a first side (bottom of 105 in Fig. 9) for supporting one or more conductive structures (col. 11, lines 13-20; see Fig. 12), wherein at least one of the surface structures comprises alternating ridges and recesses (see Fig. 11).
Kobayashi does not disclose that the body comprises threads for engaging with mating threads of an associated housing. Instead, Kobayashi (Fig. 9) discloses an elastic member (106) that engages with an associated housing and provides a seal with the associated housing.
However, Kobayashi also discloses a body (2; Fig. 1) that comprises threads (3a) for engaging with mating threads of an associated housing along with a seal (12) that provides a seal with the associated housing.
Because Kobayashi discloses different embodiments with structures that engage with an associated housing and provides a seal with the associated housing, 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 structures of one embodiment for another embodiment to achieve the predictable result of providing structures that engage with the associated housing and provide a seal with the associated housing.
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 does not disclose a capping layer covering at least a portion of 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 does not disclose forming a capping layer over at least a portion of 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 does 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 does 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 …”).
Claim 6 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 6,006,607 issued to Bryzek et al. (“Bryzek”).
As for claim 6, Kobayashi discloses the pressure sensor according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Kobayashi does not disclose that the diaphragm comprises at least one stiffening structure as recited.
However, Bryzek discloses a diaphragm (34) that comprises at least one stiffening structure (38) on a second (bottom side in Fig. 2) of the diaphragm opposite conductive structures (46).
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 Bryzek in order to focus the bending stresses on the regions of the diaphragm that include sensing structures (Bryzek: col. 2, lines 62-64).
Kobayashi as modified by Brzek discloses that the diaphragm (Kobayashi: 105 and Bryzek: 34) comprises at least one stiffening structure (Bryzek: 38) on a second (Bryzek: bottom side in Fig. 2) of the diaphragm opposite the inner and outer surface structures (because the stiffening structure is on the side opposite the conductive sensing structures; Bryzek: Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 11-14).
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 does not disclose that 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 does 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, including a new ground in which a different embodiment of Kobayashi is used.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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