DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because it is essentially the same as claim 1, thus should be cancelled. Going forward with examination, claim 2 is examined by way of claim 1.
Claim 11 is objected to because it is essentially the same as claim 3, thus should be cancelled. Going forward with examination, claim 11 is examined by way of claim 3.
Claim 12 is objected to because it is essentially the same as claims 5 and 6, thus should be cancelled. Going forward with examination, claim 12 is examined by way of claims 5 and 6.
Claim 13 is objected to because it is essentially the same as claim 7, thus should be cancelled. Going forward with examination, claim 13 is examined by way of claim 7.
Claim 14 is objected to because it is essentially the same as claim 7, thus should be cancelled. Going forward with examination, claim 14 is examined by way of claim 7.
Claim 18 is objected to because it is essentially the same as claim 17, thus should be cancelled. Going forward with examination, claim 18 is examined by way of claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banholzer et al. (US 7,152,477 B2; hereinafter “Banholzer”) in view of Tateki et al. (DE 4442478 A1; hereinafter “Tateki.” This Office action provides a machine translation of Tateki).
Banholzer teaches a ceramic pressure measuring cell 1 (Col. 3, lines 64-65: “The measuring cell 1 is made of ceramic, preferably of aluminum oxide”), the ceramic pressure measuring cell 1 comprising (See fig. 1, reproduced below):
a protective cover (19), the protective cover (19) including at least one connecting element (17) configured to provide a data connection protruding through a wall of the protective cover (19),
wherein the protective cover 19 (made of metal; Fig. 1; Col. 3, line 65: “The cap 19 is made of metal”) protects an electrical circuit (13) of the ceramic pressure measuring cell 1 (thereby serving as a metal shielding layer 19 to shield the electrical circuit 13 against electromagnetic disturbances; Col. 5, lines 1-3: “…metallic cap 19 forms essentially a Faraday cage and offers, consequently, a definite protection for the electronic circuit 13 against electromagnetic disturbances”),
wherein the at least one connecting element (17) provides a data connection to the electrical circuit 13 (which converts a measured pressure P into an electrical variable to be available on the at least one connecting element 17; Col. 3, lines 41-47), and
wherein the protective cover (19)
PNG
media_image1.png
574
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Banholzer is silent about: wherein the protective cover (19) is made of plastic and has a metal layer (19) on an inner surface of the protective cover (19).
Tateki teaches a
a protective cover (23, 24, 26), the protective cover (23, 24, 26) including at least one connecting element (4) configured to provide a data connection protruding through a wall of the protective cover (23, 24, 26),
wherein the protective cover (23, 24, 26) protects an electrical circuit (2) of the
wherein the at least one connecting element (4) provides a data connection to the electrical circuit 2 (which converts a measured pressure G into an electrical measurable variable to be available on the at least one connecting element 4; Par. 0003), and
wherein the protective cover (23, 24, 26) is made of plastic (23, 24) and has a shielding layer (26) on an inner surface of the protective cover (Fig. 3; Abstract; Pars. 0001, 0004, 0014).
As seen, the plastic (23, 24) at least helps protect the shielding layer (26) from possible damages. The shielding layer (26) shields the electrical circuit (2) against electromagnetic disturbances.
PNG
media_image2.png
448
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to apply Tateki teaching to Banholzer ceramic pressure measuring cell (1) by having the protective cover (19) made of plastic and have a metal shielding layer (19) on an inner surface of the protective cover. The plastic would at least help protect the metal shielding layer (19) from possible damages. The metal shielding layer (19) would shield the electrical circuit (13) against electromagnetic disturbances.
Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tateki in view of Banholzer.
Tateki teaches a pressure measuring cell (1) comprising all that is recited in claim 1, but is silent about the pressure measuring cell (1) being a ceramic pressure measuring cell and the shielding layer (26) being a metal layer (as presented above).
Banholzer teaches a pressure measuring cell (1) being a ceramic pressure measuring cell and a shielding layer (19) being a metal layer 19 (as presented above). It appears that the pressure measuring cell (1) being a ceramic pressure measuring cell is highly durable, and the shielding layer (19) being a metal layer serves well to shield the electrical circuit (13) of the ceramic pressure measuring cell (1) against electromagnetic disturbances.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to apply Banholzer teaching to Tateki pressure measuring cell (1) by having the pressure measuring cell (1) be a ceramic pressure measuring cell and the shielding layer (26) be a metal layer, since it appears that the pressure measuring cell (1) being a ceramic pressure measuring cell would be highly durable, and the shielding layer (26) being a metal layer would serve well to shield the electrical circuit (2) of the ceramic pressure measuring cell (1) against electromagnetic disturbances.
Claims 2-9, 11-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banholzer in view of Tateki (or vice versa).
2 (the same as claim 1).
Please see discussion above in claim 1.
3. Banholzer/Tateki as modified teaches the ceramic pressure measuring cell (1) according to claim 1, wherein the protective cover (23, 24, 26; Tateki fig. 3) at least partially includes a conductive region 26 (being a metal layer to shield the electrical circuit 2 against electromagnetic disturbances, as discussed above in claim 1).
4. Banholzer/Tateki as modified teaches the ceramic pressure measuring cell according to claim 3, wherein the conductive region (19/26) includes a metal (as discussed above in claim 1 and/or claim 3) and/or a conductive plastic.
5. Banholzer/Tateki as modified teaches the ceramic pressure measuring cell according to claim 4, wherein the metal (19/26) is formed as a sheet metal element (as discussed above in claim 1 and as seen in at least in Banholzer fig. 1 and/or Tateki fig. 3).
6. Banholzer/Tateki as modified teaches the ceramic pressure measuring cell according to claim 4, wherein the conductive region (19/26) including a sheet metal element (19/26) is grid-shaped (Tateki abstract: “screened cover 20, 21 which captures electromagnetic disturbances”).
7. Banholzer/Tateki as modified teaches the ceramic pressure measuring cell according to claim 4, wherein the metal (19/26) includes nickel or a nickel alloy (Banholzer Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 10: “The cap 19 is made of metal…e.g., nickel-iron-cobalt alloy”).
8. Banholzer/Tateki as modified teaches the ceramic pressure measuring cell according to claim 1, wherein the protective cover (19) is fluid-tight (Banholzer Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 10: “The measuring cell 1 and the cap 19 are connected together mechanically secure and hermetically sealed.” Also Tateki fig. 3, for example, appears to show the protective cover 23, 24, 26 being fluid-tight).
9. Banholzer/Tateki as modified teaches the ceramic pressure measuring cell according to claim 1, wherein the protective cover (19) is configured to be bonded with an adhesive (which may be in a form of, e.g., an active braze; Banholzer Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 10: “The measuring cell 1 and the cap 19 are connected together mechanically secure and hermetically sealed by means of a seam 23, preferably of an active braze”).
11 (essentially the same as claim 3).
Please see discussion above in claim 3.
12 (essentially the same as claims 5 and 6).
Please see discussions above in claims 5 and 6.
13 (essentially the same as claim 7).
Please see discussion above in claim 7.
14 (essentially the same as claim 7).
Please see discussion above in claim 7.
19. Banholzer/Tateki as modified teaches the ceramic pressure measuring cell according to claim 9, wherein the adhesive is a conductive adhesive (which may be in a form of, e.g., an active braze; Banholzer Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 10: “The measuring cell 1 and the cap 19 are connected together mechanically secure and hermetically sealed by means of a seam 23, preferably of an active braze”).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banholzer in view of Tateki (or vice versa) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Probst et al. (US 6,209,399 B1; hereinafter “Probst”).
Banholzer/Tateki as modified teaches the ceramic pressure measuring cell according to claims 1 and/or 2, comprising the electrical circuit 13/2 (which converts a measured pressure P/G into an electrical measurable variable to be available on the at least one connecting element 17/4, as discussed above in claim 1).
Banholzer/Tateki as modified is silent about: wherein the electrical circuit (13/2) being an application-specific integrated circuit.
Probst teaches an electronic device (1) being a pressure sensor (1) having a measuring cell (19) including an application-specific integrated circuit (Fig. 1, reproduced below; Col. 3, lines 61-64: “…the pressure sensor comprises an integrated circuit chip…;” Col. 7, lines 35-40: “…integrated circuits, particularly ASIC…”).
Note: Similar to Banholzer, Probst electronic device 1 also comprises a protective cover (3a, 39) made of metal to protect/shield the measuring cell (19) from against electromagnetic disturbances.
PNG
media_image3.png
1156
885
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to apply Probst teaching to Banholzer electronic device by having the electrical circuit (13/2) including an application-specific integrated circuit, so as to convert the measured pressure P/G into an electrical measurable variable to be available on the at least one connecting element (17/4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on the references applied in the prior rejection for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Nguyen (Wyn) Q. Ha whose telephone number is (571) 272-2863, email: nguyenq.ha@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4:30 pm (Eastern Time).
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.
/Nguyen Q. Ha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 June 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights