DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/2/2024, 3/19/2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has elected group I (claims 2-20, 25-27), with traverse. Claim 1 was indicated as a linking claim, therefore claim 1 will be examined if the applicant chose group I OR group II. Applicant has elected group I which pertains to a measuring cell. Group II, claims 21-24, although dependent on claim 1, is directed towards a method of manufacturing. A product and a method of making a product require completely different search strategies. Products and methods of making a product are classified in different CPC classes and subclasses due their differences in search strategy. For this reason, it is a burden on the examiner to search for a product and then perform a completely different search in a different CPC class on the particulars of types of manufacturing. Based on the applicant’s election, claim 1 and claims 2-20 and 25-27 will be examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko US 20030213307.
As to claim 1, Kaneko teaches “A metal pressure measuring cell for absolute pressure sensing (Abstract), comprising a metal base body (Figure 3, 11a) a membrane (Figure 3, 10) and a support body (Figure 3, 14), the membrane comprising a first surface and a second surface (Figure 3, 10 consists of a top and bottom surface, which can be the first and second surface), the support body comprising a cavity which is transversely delimited by an inner surface of the support body and axially delimited at a first side by the first surface of the membrane and open at a second side opposite to the first side to form a trough-shaped chamber for accommodating a measurement medium ([0040]; [0041]), the pressure measuring cell further comprising a cap mounted on the base body (Figure 3, 13) and covering the second surface of the membrane such that a hermetically closed pressure reference volume is formed between the cap and the second surface of the membrane (Figure 3, 12 is the pressure space between cap 13 and the second surface of the membrane 10), wherein the cap is made of metal ([0041]).”
As to claim 5, Kaneko teaches “wherein the cap has a circular cross-section ([0040]).”
As to claim 6, Kaneko teaches “wherein the cap comprises a transverse cover portion, a side wall (Figure 3, 13) and a flange transversely adjoining the side wall (Figure 3, cap 13 has a flange that abuts 19), wherein the cap is mounted on the base body by the flange (Figure 3, 13 is connected to 14, via 19).”
As to claim 7, Kaneko teaches “wherein the cap is mounted on the base body by soldering ([0040] teaches welding, which is a type of soldering).”
As to claim 8, Kaneko teaches “comprising a solderable metallic layer arranged between the base body and the cap and surrounding the second surface of the membrane ([0040]).”
As to claim 25, Kaneko teaches “A pressure transducer configured to measure pressure of a measurement medium with a density anomaly, comprising a pressure measuring cell according to claim 1 (Abstract, Figure 3. The prior art teaches strain gauges that are connected to a relay board. This converts one type of signal into another type of signal).”
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 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(s) 2, 3, 4, 9, 11-20, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko US 20030213307.
As to claim 2, Kaneko implicitly teaches “wherein the cap has an inner transverse area which is equal to the area of the membrane or larger than the area of the membrane (Figure 3).”
The prior art does not explicitly teach “wherein the cap has an inner transverse area which is equal to the area of the membrane or larger than the area of the membrane”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art does teach a metal cap with an inner transverse area and also teaches a membrane with an area. Based on this, one of ordinary skill in the art has the ability to adjust the dimensions of known elements based on sensor application and material sensitivity. This would aid in sensor sensitivity.
As to claim 3, Kaneko teaches “wherein the coefficients of expansion of the base body and the cap are essentially equal (Figure 3. The prior art does teach a metal cap and a membrane. The material is taught to be metal. Based on this, one of ordinary skill in the art has the ability to adjust the dimensions of known elements based on sensor application and material sensitivity. This would aid in sensor sensitivity).”
As to claim 4, Kaneko teaches “wherein the base body and/or the cap are made of a duplex stainless, a ferritic or an austenitic steel (Figure 3. The prior art does teach a metal cap and a membrane. The material is taught to be metal. Based on this, one of ordinary skill in the art has the ability to choose one material over another based on based on sensor application and material sensitivity. This would aid in sensor sensitivity).”
As to claim 9, Kaneko teaches “wherein the solderable metallic layer ([0040]).”
The prior art does not teach “is made of AgPd”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art does teach welding 2 components to create a durable seal. Choosing the type of metallic material only requires routine skill in the art and this is obvious. The type of material depends on the sensor application and sensitivity, both of which is determined by the user.
As to claim 11, Kaneko teaches “wherein the pressure in the reference volume (Figure 3, 12 is a pressure chamber).”
The prior arts do not teach “is below 20 mbar.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art does teach a pressure reference space in element 12. Setting the pressure depends on the user’s preference as well as the application of the sensor. This would aid in optimization.
As to claim 12, Kaneko does not teach “wherein the inner surface of the support body is shaped such that a transverse diameter (D) of the trough-shaped chamber monotonously decreases from the second side of the cavity towards the first side of the cavity.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention since it is known that the alteration of known designs and elements is obvious. The shape of the support body is a design choice, and changing the size and dimensions of taught element only involves routine skill in the art. The instant application presents embodiments with different designs as different embodiments, meaning that the shape can be altered as needed.
As to claim 13, Kaneko does not teach “wherein the inner surface of the support body adjoins the first surface of the membrane with a slope.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention since it is known that the alteration of known designs and elements is obvious. The shape of the support body is a design choice, and changing the size and dimensions of taught element only involves routine skill in the art. The instant application presents embodiments with different designs as different embodiments, meaning that the shape can be altered as needed.
As to claim 14, Kaneko does not teach “wherein the inner surface of the support body comprises one or more conical profile sections.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention since it is known that the alteration of known designs and elements is obvious. The shape of the support body is a design choice, and changing the size and dimensions of taught element only involves routine skill in the art. The instant application presents embodiments with different designs as different embodiments, meaning that the shape can be altered as needed.
As to claim 15, Kaneko does not teach “wherein the inner surface of the support body comprises a conical profile extending from the second side of the cavity to the first side of the cavity.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention since it is known that the alteration of known designs and elements is obvious. The shape of the support body is a design choice, and changing the size and dimensions of taught element only involves routine skill in the art. The instant application presents embodiments with different designs as different embodiments, meaning that the shape can be altered as needed.
As to claim 16, Kaneko does not teach “wherein the inner surface of the support body comprises one or more concave sections.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention since it is known that the alteration of known designs and elements is obvious. The shape of the support body is a design choice, and changing the size and dimensions of taught element only involves routine skill in the art. The instant application presents embodiments with different designs as different embodiments, meaning that the shape can be altered as needed.
As to claim 17, Kaneko does not teach “wherein the inner surface of the support body comprises one or more convex sections.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention since it is known that the alteration of known designs and elements is obvious. The shape of the support body is a design choice, and changing the size and dimensions of taught element only involves routine skill in the art. The instant application presents embodiments with different designs as different embodiments, meaning that the shape can be altered as needed.
As to claim 18, Kaneko does not teach “wherein the inner surface of the support body comprises a parabolic profile extending from the second side of the cavity to the first side of the cavity.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention since it is known that the alteration of known designs and elements is obvious. The shape of the support body is a design choice, and changing the size and dimensions of taught element only involves routine skill in the art. The instant application presents embodiments with different designs as different embodiments, meaning that the shape can be altered as needed.
As to claim 19, Kaneko does teach “wherein chamber is an empty space configured to solely accommodate the measurement medium (Figure 3, 12).”
Kaneko does not teach “the trough-shaped”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention since it is known that the alteration of known designs and elements is obvious. The shape of the support body is a design choice, and changing the size and dimensions of taught element only involves routine skill in the art. The instant application presents embodiments with different designs as different embodiments, meaning that the shape can be altered as needed.
As to claim 20, Kaneko teaches “wherein the membrane and the support body are formed as an integral part (Figure 3).”
Kaneko does not teach “such that the trough-shaped chamber configured to accommodate the measurement medium is formed by the integral part.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to arrive at the claimed invention since it is known that the alteration of known designs and elements is obvious. The shape of the support body is a design choice, and changing the size and dimensions of taught element only involves routine skill in the art. The instant application presents embodiments with different designs as different embodiments, meaning that the shape can be altered as needed.
As to claim 26, Kaneko teaches “The pressure transducer according to claim 25, wherein the trough-shaped chamber is an empty space for accommodating solely the measurement medium (Figure 3. The shape of the support body is a design choice, and changing the size and dimensions of taught element only involves routine skill in the art. The instant application presents embodiments with different designs as different embodiments, meaning that the shape can be altered as needed).”
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko US 20030213307 in view of Suminto US 7775119.
As to claim 10, Kaneko teaches “between the base body and the metallic layer and surrounding the second surface of the membrane (Figure 3).” Kaneko does not teach an insulating layer.
Suminto teaches “comprising an intermediate insulating layer arranged (Column 5, lines 39-43).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Suminto with Kaneko. Having an insulating layer protects other elements within the sensing cell.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko US 20030213307 in view of Gouzon US 20060278283.
As to claim 27, Kaneko teaches “comprising a pressure transducer according to claim 25 (Figure 3).”
The prior art does not teach “A dosing unit for dosing an exhaust gas reduction medium”.
Gouzon teaches “A dosing unit for dosing an exhaust gas reduction medium ([0056]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Gouzon with Kaneko. Using a pressure cell within a dosing system is obvious since the pressure is critical to measure over time within certain gas exhaust systems. This would aid in optimization of the dosing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/TARUN SINHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights