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 claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/22/2024 is in compliance with time for filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.97, and thus, the information disclosure statement has been considered except as otherwise indicated.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9: Has a partial parenthesis at the end of the claim “).” A
Claim 11: Limitation “…the micromechanical diagraphragm system includes…” on lines 6-7 is misspelled and should be changed to “the micromechanical diaphragm system includes…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuntzman et al. (US11780726B2).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kuntzman discloses a micromechanical diaphragm system (Figs. 2 element 100) , comprising:
a first diaphragm (element 102);
a second diaphragm (element 104); and
spacer elements (element 20) arranged between the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm, wherein at least one of the spacer elements has a first supporting element (element 102B) and a second supporting element (element 104B), wherein the first supporting element faces the first diaphragm, wherein the second supporting element faces the second diaphragm (Fig. 2A, paragraphs 22-30), and wherein the first supporting element and the second supporting element are connected via a spring element (element 112).
Regarding Claim 7:
Kuntzman discloses a micromechanical diaphragm system according to claim 1, wherein a closed cavity (Figs. 2 element 106) is arranged between the first (element 102) and second diaphragms (element 104).
Regarding Claim 8:
Kuntzman discloses a micromechanical diaphragm system according to claim 7, wherein the cavity (Figs. 2 element 106) has a negative pressure (paragraphs 32-33), the negative pressure being a vacuum (paragraph 49).
Regarding Claim 9:
Kuntzman discloses a micromechanical diaphragm system according to claim 1, wherein the micromechanical diaphragm system (Figs. 2 element 100) is a microelectromechanical diaphragm system (paragraphs 1 and 22), wherein the first diaphragm (element 102) has a first diaphragm electrode (paragraph 26), wherein the second diaphragm (element 104) has a second diaphragm electrode (paragraph 26), wherein a central support structure (element 108) having at least one center electrode (element 108) is arranged between the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm (paragraphs 22-28), wherein the center electrode has through-openings (element 110), and wherein the spacer elements are arranged in the through-openings (paragraph 24).
Regarding Claim 10:
Kuntzman discloses a micromechanical diaphragm system according to claim 9, wherein the central support structure (Figs. 2 element 108) and the spacer elements (element 20) are formed at least partially of the same material (paragraphs 29 and 41).
Regarding Claim 11:
Kuntzman discloses a micromechanical component (Figs. 12 element 1000) for interacting with a pressure gradient of a fluid (paragraphs 43-47), comprising:
a substrate (Figs. 2 element 118) having a through-cavity (element 122); and a
micromechanical diaphragm system (element 100), the micromechanical diaphragm system at least partially spans the through-cavity (Figs. 2 and 12, paragraph 24), and the micromechanical diaphragm system includes:
a first diaphragm (element 102);
a second diaphragm (element 104); and
spacer elements (element 20) arranged between the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm, wherein at least one of the spacer elements has a first supporting element (element 102B) and a second supporting element (element 104B), wherein the first supporting element faces the first diaphragm, wherein the second supporting element faces the second diaphragm (Fig. 2A, paragraphs 22-30), and wherein the first supporting element and the second supporting element are connected via a spring element (element 112).
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuntzman et al. (US11780726B2) in view of Weber et al. (US20220396477A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Based upon the prior publication date of the reference, it also constitutes prior are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Kuntzman discloses a micromechanical diaphragm system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose where one of the spacer elements has a further first supporting element nor a further spring element.
Weber, however, discloses an analogous micromechanical component (Fig. 3A), wherein at least one of the spacer elements (Figs. 3-11, elements 54) has a further first supporting element (elements 56), wherein the further first supporting element and the second supporting element (element 20b) are connected via a further spring element (element 57/54, paragraphs 39-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Kuntzman further in view of Weber to explicitly include where at least one of the spacer elements has a further first supporting element and a further spring element – connecting the further first support element and the second supporting element – because both are directed to analogous MEMs devices. Doing so improves the flexibility and capacitance of MEMs devices regardless of pressure changes (Weber, paragraphs 9-10 and 65).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Kuntzman and Weber disclose a micromechanical diaphragm system according to claim 2, but Kuntzman does not explicitly disclose where at least one of the spacer elements further includes a further second supporting element nor a center element.
Weber, however, discloses an analogous micromechanical component (Fig. 3A), wherein the at least one of the spacer elements (Figs. 3B-6) further includes a further second supporting element (elements 56), wherein the first supporting element (element 56) is connected via the spring element (element 54) to a center element (element 20b), wherein the further first supporting element (element 56) is connected via the further spring element (element 57/54) to the center element (element 20b), wherein the center element is connected via the further spring element (element 57/54) to the second supporting element (element 56), and wherein the center element is connected via the further spring element (element 57/54) to the further second supporting element (paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Kuntzman further in view of Weber to explicitly include where at one of the spacer elements further includes a further second supporting element and a center element – along with the arrangements provided above – because both are directed to analogous MEMs devices. Doing so improves the flexibility and capacitance of MEMs devices regardless of pressure changes (Weber, paragraphs 9-10 and 65).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Kuntzman and Weber disclose a micromechanical diaphragm system according to claim 2, but Kuntzman does not explicitly disclose where the spring element or further spring element is a torsion spring.
Weber, however, discloses an analogous micromechanical component (Fig. 3A), wherein the spring element and/or the further spring element (Figs. 3-11, elements 54/57) is a torsion spring (paragraph 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Kuntzman further in view of Weber to explicitly include where either the spring element or the further spring element (or both) is a torsion spring because both are directed to analogous MEMs devices. Doing so improves the flexibility and capacitance of MEMs devices regardless of pressure changes (Weber, paragraphs 9-10 and 65).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuntzman et al. (US11780726B2) in view of Yang et al. (US20150270180A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Kuntzman discloses a micromechanical diaphragm system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose where space element containing the spring element is a folded spring.
Yang, however, discloses an analogous integrated MEMs sensor device (Figs. 16-18), wherein the spring element is a folded spring element (paragraphs 14 and 92-93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Kuntzman further in view of Yang to explicitly include where the spring element is a folded spring element because both are directed to analogous pressure sensing MEMs devices. Doing so improves the ability of further integration while maintain the integrity of the MEMs pressure sensor (Yang, paragraphs 7-14).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuntzman et al. (US11780726B2) in view of Boyd et al. (US20230388714A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Kuntzman discloses a micromechanical diaphragm system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose where the first and second diaphragms are divided into inner and outer regions nor where the spring element containing spacer elements are arranged in the outer region.
Boyd, however, discloses an analogous MEMs device (Figs. 1-3), wherein a first diaphragm (element 21) and a second diaphragm (element 22) are divided into an inner region (Fig. 7 element 31) and an outer region (elements 32/30) enclosing the inner region, wherein the spacer elements (element 30) are arranged in the outer region, wherein those of the spacer elements (element 30) configured as stiffening elements are arranged in the inner region (paragraphs 59-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Kuntzman further in view of Boyd to explicitly include an inner and an outer region – dividing the first and second diaphragms, respectively – where the outer region, containing the spacer elements having the spring element, encloses the inner region. Furthermore, where the inner region comprises of spacer elements configured as stiffening elements because both are directed to analogous micro-electromechanical systems. Doing so improves the reliability and stability of these MEMs devices (Boyd, paragraphs 2-3 and 59-61).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chandrasekaran et al. (US 20210204048 A1), Nawaz et al. (US 11825266 B2), Timme et al. (US 20230339743 A1), Strasser et al. (US 20200239302 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chloë E Benton whose telephone number is (571)272-9976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8am-6pm EST.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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.
/CALEEN O SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Chloë E Benton/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights