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 § 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 1-3, 5, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,989,513 issued to Kato et al. (“Kato”).
As for claim 1, Kato discloses a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) sensor, which comprises:
a sensor housing (34, 35); and
a crystal component (33, 36, 37) supported within the sensor housing (see Fig. 4), the crystal component (33, 36, 37) including a quartz crystal substrate (33) and a gasket seal (36, 37) integrally coupled to disposed about the periphery of the quartz crystal substrate, the gasket seal (36, 37) extending from both front and rear faces of the quartz crystal substrate (see Fig. 4), the gasket seal configured to prevent ingress of fluids into the sensor housing (see Fig. 4).
As for claim 2, Kato discloses that the sensor housing (34, 35) includes:
a crystal holder (34) for at least partially supporting the crystal component (33, 36); and
a sensor body (35) coupled to the crystal holder (34);
wherein the gasket seal (36) is disposed between the crystal holder and the sensor body (see Fig. 4).
As for claim 3, Kato discloses that the crystal substrate (33) is spaced from coupling locations (where 36 contacts 34 and where 37 contacts 35) of the gasket seal and the crystal holder and the sensor body (see Fig. 4)
As for claim 5, Kato discloses that at least one of the sensor body, crystal holder and gasket seal (36) are configured to establish an interference fit to facilitate formation of a seal within the sensor housing (see Fig. 4).
As for claim 8, Kato disclose that the gasket seal (36) isolates the crystal component (33) from external vibration sources in a process environment (see Fig. 4).
As for claim 11, Kato discloses that the gasket seal (36, 37) resists the ingress of fluids through multiple pathways by forming a first interference fit between the quartz crystal substrate (33) and the gasket seal (36 or 37), a second interference fit between the crystal holder (34) and the gasket seal (36), and a third interference fit between the sensor body (35) and the gasket seal (37).
Claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,856,563 issued to Martinson et al. (“Martinson”).
As for claim 1, Martinson discloses a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) sensor, which comprises:
a sensor housing (22, 58); and
a crystal component (30, 50, 60) supported within the sensor housing (22, 58), the crystal component (30, 50, 60) including a quartz crystal substrate (30) and a gasket seal (50, 60) integrally coupled to and disposed about the periphery of the quartz crystal substrate (see Fig. 1b), the gasket seal extending from both front and rear faces of the quartz crystal substrate (see Fig. 1b), the gasket seal configured to prevent ingress of fluids into the sensor housing (see Fig. 1b).
As for claim 2, Martinson discloses that the sensor housing includes:
a crystal holder (22) for at least partially supporting the crystal component (30, 50); and
a sensor body (58) coupled to the crystal holder (22);
wherein the gasket seal (50) is disposed between the crystal holder and the sensor body (see Fig. 1b).
As for claim 3, Martinson discloses that the crystal substrate (30) is spaced from coupling locations (where 50 contacts 22 and where 60 contacts 58) of the gasket seal and the crystal holder and the sensor body (see Fig. 1b)
As for claim 5, Martinson discloses that at least one of the sensor body, crystal holder and gasket seal (50) are configured to establish an interference fit to facilitate formation of a seal within the sensor housing (see Fig. 1b).
As for claim 8, Martinson discloses that the gasket seal (50) isolates the crystal component from external vibration sources in a process environment (see Fig. 1b).
As for claim 11, Martinson discloses that the gasket seal (50, 60) resists the ingress of fluids through multiple pathways by forming a first interference fit between the quartz crystal substrate (30) and the gasket seal (50 or 60), a second interference fit between the crystal holder (22) and the gasket seal (60), and a third interference fit between the sensor body (58) and the gasket seal (50).
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,989,513 issued to Kato et al. (“Kato”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,111,699 issued to Perrenoud et al. (“Perrenoud”).
As for claim 6, Kato discloses the quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) sensor according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Kato does not disclose that the gasket seal is comprised of a perfluoroelastomer material selected to withstand temperature parameters of a process environment.
However, Perrenoud discloses a gasket seal (518) that is comprised of a perfluoroelastomer material selected to withstand the temperature parameters of a process environment (col. 6, lines 22-26).
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 gasket seal of Kato to be made of a perfluoroelastomer as disclosed by Perrenoud because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07 and in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
As for claim 7, Kato as modified by Perrenoud discloses that the perfluoroelastomer material is selected to be chemically resistant to corrosive elements present in the process environment (Perrenoud: col. 6, lines 22-26).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,856,563 issued to Martinson et al. (“Martinson”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0344950 by Onda (“Onda”).
As for claim 9, Martinson discloses the quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) sensor according to claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 9 above).
Martinson does not disclose that the crystal holder is coated with a chemically resistant protective coating.
However, Onda discloses a crystal holder (101) that is coated with a chemically resistant protective coating (165; paragraph [0116]).
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 crystal holder of Martinson to include the coating as disclosed by Onda in order to prevent the adhesion of unwanted substances (Onda: paragraph [0116]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,856,563 issued to Martinson et al. (“Martinson”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0344950 by Onda (“Onda”) as applied to claim 9, further in view of CN 1938840 by Yue (“Yue”) and WO 2023/073831 by Kishimoto et al. (“Kishimoto”).
As for claim 10, Martinson as modified by Onda discloses the quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) sensor according to claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 10 above).
Martinson as modified by Onda does not disclose that the protective coating comprises silica, alumina, or a combination of silica and alumina. Instead, Onda discloses a protective coating comprising other materials that inhibit adhesion (paragraph [0116]).
However, Yue discloses a protective coating that comprises silica, alumina, or a combination of silica and alumina (see the paragraph beginning “Further, one or more surface comprises a chemical treatment …”). Kishimoto discloses that silica and alumina inhibit adhesion (see the paragraph beginning “Specific materials for the adhesion-inhibiting layer 15 include …”).
Because Yue and Onda both disclose materials that prevent adhesion, 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 material of Yue for the material of Onda to achieve the predictable result of providing a protective coating that prevents adhesion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pager 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Kato’s O-ring performs a different function. However, the examiner notes that the intended use of the O-ring does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art of Kato. The examiner’s position is that an O-ring that retains solvent within a volume also prevents ingress of fluids into the same volume.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Kato does not disclose a gasket seal that extends from both front and rear faces of a quartz crystal substrate. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the amendment to claim 1, the gasket seal of Kato has been reinterpreted to be elements 36 and 37.
On pages 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Martinson does not disclose a gasket seal that extends from both front and rear faces of a quartz crystal substrate. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the amendment to claim 1, the gasket seal of Martinson has been reinterpreted to be elements 50 and 60.
Conclusion
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 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
