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 .
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1,15, it’s not clear how that outer member 304 “encapsulates” (line 3 from last of claim 1; line 2 from last of claim 15) the cavity 306. (Actually, Applicant’s figures illustrate that it does not) The outer member 304 merely covers one side of the cavity 306, and does not surround the cavity in any manner. (Disclosed structure that provides a boundary that defines the cavity in the drawing, but the outer membrane does not encapsulate. Encapsulation might require all of the surrounding structure, but then the cavity never existed outside of the surrounding to ever encapsulate) The term encapsulates has not been clearly redefined in the written specification (per MPEP 2173.05(a) III); the common meaning of the term encapsulates has not been rejected/disavowed in the application. One of ordinary skill would be unable to interpret the last 3 lines of claim 1 in such a situation?
As to claim 3, what is the meaning of “one or more of silicon or nitride” mean? Consider that the passage employs the term “or” twice, but never utilizes the term - - either - - . (Such is the case in the specification too Does it mean one of: (1) silicon, (2) nitride and (3) silicon and nitride, (4) silicon and something more, (5) nitride and something more? Number (3) (silicon and nitride) is not supported in Paragraphs 39 and 45 of the Publication. Also, Numbers (4) and (5) may or may not be limitations. The phrase “one or more of silicon or nitride” is uncertain as to the alternatives, and the specification does not provide clarity.
As to claim 20, lines 5-6 from last is problematic, as the outer membrane 304 is not such that it “forms a hermetic seal between the membrane support 208 and the fluid cavity 306” (italics added) because the membrane 304 is not “between” (line 6 from last) the support 308 and cavity 306 . One contemplate that the outer membrane 304 provides a sealing action, but even then the membrane is not “between” the support 38 and the cavity 306. That phrase “between the membrane support and the fluid cavity” is problematic.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Poppitz’s material 40 is “uncrosslinked organic substance (40), and comprises “silicon oil fat” (claim 9) which can be thin liquids or thick gels. As such, most likely the substance 40 is not an “outer membrane” that encapsulates the cavity 50. In addition, the shaded substance 40 in Figure 4 has an upper surface that is rounded circumferential rounded edge which suggests that the lowest portion of the substance 40 in Figure 4 is not fixed to the membrane support 23, as a membrane would be. The substance 40 is a separating material, and thus not deemed a membrane.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by Kim KR ‘515
Kim teaches a device, including:
a housing having an opening
PNG
media_image2.png
286
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; and
a pressure sensor disposed within the housing and adjacent to the opening, the pressure
sensor comprising:
a substrate;
a sensing membrane disposed on the substrate and configured to obtain pressure
data;
a membrane support disposed on the substrate;
an outer membrane disposed on the membrane support, wherein the outer
membrane has a thickness that is smaller than the sensing membrane;
reference cavity formed between the sensing membrane and the substrate; and
a fluid cavity disposed between the sensing membrane and the outer membrane,
wherein the outer membrane forms a hermetic seal between the membrane support and
the fluid cavity by extending across the fluid cavity to enclose the fluid cavity, and
wherein the outer membrane has a thickness that is smaller than the sensing membrane,
wherein the membrane support has a temperature coefficient of offset value that
corresponds to that of and a fluid encapsulated within the fluid cavity exhibit similar thermal
expansion behavior.
PNG
media_image3.png
680
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The deflection of the sensing element is due to a pressure differential between the fluid in the cavity 25 and the fluid above the sensing element. The fluid in the hollow portion provides the reference. As such, a portion of that cavity 11 is between the sensing membrane and substrate as shown by the added oval region in the drawing above. Finally, the membrane support and fluid in the cavity have similar thermal expansion to the extent that both expand with an increase in temperature. Also, the outer membrane 28 is visibly smaller in thickness than the sensing membrane.
Claim(s) 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim KR ‘515.
The two drawings above teach every limitation of claim 1, with the sole exception of the other membrane encapsulating (“encapsulates”, line 3 from last, claim 1) the fluid cavity.
As to claims 1,4,15, either the outer membrane encapsulates as much as claimed because neither one actually encapsulates, or one of ordinary skill might (somehow) construe that each of the individual elements (i.e., outer membrane, substrate and sensing membrane) that collectively surround/define the cavity also individually encapsulate.
As to claim 5, the outer membrane in the drawing on second drawing of this Action illustrates just that.
As to claims 6,7, membrane 28 is both thinner and made of Teflon, than of the sensing membrane of steel.
As to claims 8,17, such is visible in Figure 2.
As to claims 9,10,11,12, the outer membrane’s 28 “made of a material having micropores of 5 microns or less” call for barely greater thickness.
As to claim 13,19, the membrane support and fluid in the cavity have similar thermal expansion to the extent that both expand with an increase in temperature.
As to claim 14, the “membrane 28 is made of a material having micropores of 5 microns or less” is within Applicant’s meaning of MEMS.
As to claim 16, membrane 28 is both thinner and made of Teflon, than of the sensing membrane of steel.
As to REMARKS:
As to line 1 of page 9; the claim calls for encapsulation by outer membrane, triggering many difficulties.
As to the middle paragraph of p. 10; the claim calls for encapsulation by outer membrane.
As to the middle paragraph of p. 11;
PNG
media_image4.png
440
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights