DETAILED ACTION
for
PRESSURE SENSOR STRUCTURE AND PRESSURE SENSOR DEVICE
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 .
Status of the Claims
Regarding the status of the claims, please see the following:
Claims 1-2 and 11 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see page 1-3, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the drawing & Specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection has been withdrawn per applicants’ remarks to the drawings & Specification.
Applicants’ arguments, see page 3-10, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 102 & 103 rejections, the remarks have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. To benefit the Applicant, arguments will be discussed below.
On page 4 of the remarks, Applicant alleges that " ... Kuisma fails to disclose "upper and lower guard electrode insulating layers electrically insulating the guard electrode layer " and "a surface of an outer side portion of the sidewall layer are covered with an electrical insulating film." The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants position.
PNG
media_image1.png
938
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching the examiner recognizes that ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claim at issue requires interpreting the claim language and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole. See MPEP § 2111 - § 2116.01
The Claim at issue requires interpreting the claim language and considering both the invention and the prior art references in its entirety.
Although, in the previous action the examiner mislabeled numeral 29 (corrected name as insulating layer), the disclosure, in its entirety as a whole must be taken into consideration by the Applicant.
In this case, Kuisma clearly states in multiple location in the disclosure (see Kuisma [¶0004, lines 1-4], for example) that the primary purpose of the invention is a physical quantity pressure sensor that corresponds to force acting on a surface which is used as a gauge to measure the pressure.
the Examiner does not believe “the insulating first layer 28 of Kuisma corresponds to both of the "upper and lower guard electrode insulating layers". Kuisma discloses a second insulating layer 29 (see Kuisma [¶0038, lines 1-5], for example) the sidewall layer includes an upper guard electrode insulating layer (29) and a lower guard electrode insulating layers (28) electrically insulating the guard electrode layer (27; see annotated Fig. 4 above compared to Fig. 1 of the Instant Application).
Thus, contrary to applicants’ assertion, Kuisma does disclose a reasonable expectation of success. After having considered all of applicants’ arguments, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 over Kuisma is maintained.
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, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuisma et al. (US 20150204744).
Regarding claim 1, Kuisma discloses a pressure sensor structure to detect changes in electrostatic capacitance between electrodes, the pressure sensor structure comprising (see abstract): a sensor body including a diaphragm plate (20) defining and functioning as a sense electrode (Fig. 4), a base electrode (400) facing the diaphragm plate (20), and a sidewall layer (23) maintaining a gap (22) between the diaphragm plate (20) and the base electrode (400); and a conductive base substrate (21) supporting the sensor body (Fig. 4); wherein the sidewall layer (23) includes a guard electrode layer (27) and upper and lower guard electrode insulating layers (28, 29) electrically insulating the guard electrode layer (¶0030, lines 1-4); a surface of an outer side portion (bottom side of 20) of the diaphragm plate (20) and a surface of an outer side portion of the sidewall layer (side wall layers 23 includes 27-29, which top peripheries of 29 ) is covered with an electrical insulating film (29 is a second insulating
PNG
media_image2.png
480
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
material); and the electrical insulating film includes (29 is a second insulating material) a contact region at which a portion of the guard electrode layer (27) communicates with outside air (Fig. 4) and a portion of the guard electrode layer (27) being sandwiched between the upper (29) and lower (28) guard electrode insulating layers (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 2, Kuisma further discloses a pressure sensor structure to detect changes in electrostatic capacitance between electrodes, the pressure sensor structure comprising (see abstract): a sensor body including a diaphragm plate (20) defining and functioning as a sense electrode (Fig. 4), a base electrode (400) facing the diaphragm plate (20), and a sidewall layer (23) maintaining a gap (22) between the diaphragm plate (20) and the base electrode (400); and a conductive base substrate (21) supporting the sensor body (Fig. 4); wherein the sidewall layer (23) includes a guard electrode layer (27) and upper and lower guard electrode insulating layers (28, 29) electrically insulating the guard electrode layer (¶0030, lines 1-4); a surface of an outer side portion (bottom side of 20) of the diaphragm plate (20) and a surface of an outer side portion of the sidewall layer (side wall 23 includes 27-29, which top peripheries of 29 ) are covered with an electrical insulating film (29 is a second insulating material); and the electrical insulating film includes (29 is a second insulating material) a contact region at which a portion of the guard electrode layer (27) communicates with outside air (Fig. 4), and the contact region (Fig. 4) being provided so that a portion of the guard electrode layer (27) communicates with the outside air through an opening in the diaphragm plate (20) and the upper guard electrode insulating layer (29).
Regarding claim 3, Kuisma further discloses a conductive film (29 is conductive) electrically connected to the guard electrode layer (27) via the contact region is provided on the electrical insulating film (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Kuisma further discloses the conductive film is made of Si (¶0036, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Kuisma discloses an inert gas is located in the gap (¶0035, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 9, Kuisma further discloses a planar shape of the diaphragm plate (20, Fig 5), the base electrode (400), and the sidewall (23) being rectangular (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 10, Kuisma further discloses the electrical insulating film (28) being made of SiN (¶0036, lines 1-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuisma et al. (US 20150204744) in view of
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kuisma further discloses a pressure sensor structure with a diaphragm plate.
Kuisma fails to explicitly disclose being made of polycrystalline Si, amorphous Si, or single crystal Si.
The use of the particular material, i.e., polycrystalline Si, amorphous Si, or single crystal Si , as stated in claim 7, for the diaphragm plate, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” material that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made using routine experimentation would have found obvious to provide for the probe element disclosed by Prior Art since it has been held to be a matter of obvious design choice and within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuisma et al. (US 20150204744) in view of Hanzawa et al. (EP 947816).
Regarding claim 8, Kuisma discloses the sidewall layer (23).
Kuisma fails to explicitly disclose having a frame shape surrounding the gap.
Hanzawa discloses having a frame shape (160) surrounding the gap (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of pressure sensor structure to detect changes in electrostatic capacitance between electrodes, to modify Kuisma, to include a frame shape, as taught by Hanzawa, for the benefit of providing a device for detecting fluid pressure, particularly useful in a stable highly reliable construction is formed by reducing deformation due to residual stress.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Prior arts made available do not teach or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, a housing to house the pressure sensor structure; a capacitance conversion circuit to process signals from the pressure sensor structure and to cancel stray electrostatic capacitance around the diaphragm plate, a base electrode being arranged opposed to a diaphragm plate, a sidewall layer is provided with a guard electrode layer, the upper and lower guard electrode insulating layers is provided to electrically insulate the guard electrode layer, the outside surface of the diaphragm plate and the outside surface of the sidewall layer are covered with an electrically insulating film, the electrically insulating film is provided with a contact region in which a portion of the guard electrode layer is connected to external air the contact region is provided so that a portion of the guard electrode layer communicates with the outside air through an opening in the diaphragm plate and the upper guard electrode insulating layer.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights