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 .
Claims
Claims 1-22, 24-29, and 31-33 are pending.
Claims 23 and 30 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see page 2-5) filed 09/14/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-22, 24-29 and 31-33 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is set forth in this action. Because this new grounds of rejection is not the result of an amendment, this action has been made Non-Final.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 12-13, 22, 28-29 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann+Hummel GmbH DE202007015980 (hereinafter “Mann”) in view of Ingrisch et al US6062088 (hereinafter “Ingrisch”).
Regarding claim 1, Mann discloses a pressure measuring cell (pressure sensor-1) comprising a membrane (membrane-4) comprising a first surface and a second surface (See Fig 1), and a support body (silicon chip-2), the support body comprising a cavity (channel-5) 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 (See Fig 1), wherein the inner surface of the support body is shaped such that a transverse diameter of the trough-shaped chamber at the second side of the cavity is larger than a transverse diameter at the first side of the cavity (See Fig 1 which shows housing part-8 formed with the recited structure), and wherein the membrane and the support body are formed as an integral part (see Fig 1) such that the trough-shaped chamber configured to accommodate the measurement medium is formed by the integral part (See Fig 1).
However, Mann fails to disclose wherein the support body and the membrane are made of metal. Ingrisch discloses wherein the support body (rigid frame-3) and the membrane (membrane-1) are made of metal (Col 3 line 6-25, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Ingrisch into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for improving the life of the device by using a stronger material to form the structure.
Regarding claim 2, Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Mann discloses the inner surface of the support body (chip-2) is shaped such that the transverse diameter of the trough-shaped chamber monotonously decreases from the second side of the cavity towards the first side of the cavity.
Regarding claim 3, Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Mann discloses the inner surface of the support body (chip-2) adjoins the first surface of the membrane (membrane-4) with a slope (See Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Mann discloses the inner surface of the support body (chip-2) comprises one or more linearly slanted sections (See Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Mann discloses the inner surface of the support body (chi-2) comprises one or more conical profile sections (See Fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 7, except for a conical profile section corresponds to a cone with an apex angle between 15° and 50°.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to make a conical profile section corresponds to a cone with an apex angle between 15° and 50°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP2144.05(II-A); Please note that in the instant specification, see page 9 line 18-22 and pages 11 line 27-page 12 line 2, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 12, Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 7.
Furthermore, Mann discloses the inner surface of the support body (chip-2) comprises at least two conical profile sections (See Fig 1 showing multiple conical profile sections), wherein a cone corresponding to a conical profile section at a second end of the cavity exhibits a larger apex angle than a cone corresponding to a conical profile section at a first end of the cavity (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 7.
Furthermore, Mann discloses the inner surface of the support body (chip-2) comprises a conical profile extending from the second side of the cavity to the first side of the cavity (See Fig 1 showing the conical profile extending from the second side of the cavity to the first side of the cavity).
Regarding claim 22, Mann discloses the cell according to claim 1.
However, Mann fails to disclose the inner surface of the support body adjoins the first surface of the membrane perpendicularly. Ingrish discloses the inner surface of the support body (frame-3) adjoins the first surface of the membrane (membrane-1) perpendicularly. (Col 3 line 6-25, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Ingrisch into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for improving the life of the device by using a stronger material to form the structure.
Regarding claim 28, Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Mann discloses the trough-shaped chamber is an empty space configured to solely accommodate the measurement medium (See Fig 1).
Regarding claim 29, Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Mann discloses the pressure measuring cell (pressure sensor-1) is a relative pressure measuring cell (See Fig 1).
Regarding claim 31 Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
Furthermore, Mann discloses a pressure transducer (pressure sensor used in air pressure filter of vehicle) configured to measure pressure of a measurement medium with a density anomaly (freezing water), comprising a pressure measuring cell according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 32, Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 31.
Furthermore, Mann discloses the trough-shaped chamber is an empty space for accommodating solely the measurement medium. (See Fig 1).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann+Hummel GmbH DE202007015980 (hereinafter “Mann”) in view of Ingrisch et al US6062088 (hereinafter “Ingrisch”) in further view of Ooya US20120240683.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 4.
However, the combination fails to disclose the inner surface of the support body comprises at least two linearly slanted sections, wherein a linearly slanted section at the second side of the cavity exhibits a smaller slope with respect to the membrane than a linearly slanted section at the first side of the cavity. Ooya discloses the inner surface (inner wall-33, 43a) of the support body (support body-12) comprises at least two linearly slanted sections (See Fig 3 and 8), wherein a linearly slanted section at the second side of the cavity exhibits a smaller slope with respect to the membrane than a linearly slanted section at the first side of the cavity (Paragraph 0041-0043, and 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Ooya into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy.
The modification would allow for improving keeping the pressure below a desired threshold by controlling fluid velocity.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 4.
However, the combination fails the inner surface of the support body comprises at least two linearly slanted sections, wherein a linearly slanted section at the second side of the cavity exhibits a larger slope with respect to the membrane than a linearly slanted section at the first side of the cavity. Ooya discloses the inner surface of the support body (support body-12) comprises at least two linearly slanted sections (See Fig 3, 8-9 and 12), wherein a linearly slanted section at the second side of the cavity exhibits a larger slope with respect to the membrane than a linearly slanted section at the first side of the cavity. (Paragraph 0033, 0041-0043, 0081, 0089, 0091).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Ooya into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for improving keeping the pressure below a desired threshold by controlling fluid velocity.
Claims 9-11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann+Hummel GmbH DE202007015980 (hereinafter “Mann”) in view of Ingrisch et al US6062088 (hereinafter “Ingrisch”) in further view of Wohlgemuth et al US20200340874 (hereinafter “Wohlgemuth”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 7.
However, the combination fails to disclose the inner surface of the support body comprises a conical profile section adjacent to the membrane and a cylindrical profile section adjoining the conical profile section. Wohlgemuth discloses the inner surface of the support body (support element-20) comprises a conical profile section adjacent to the membrane (membrane-11) and a cylindrical profile section adjoining the conical profile section (See regions 41 and 42 showing the conical and cylindrical profile sections; paragraphs 0016-0034; Fig 2; claims 18 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Wohlgemuth into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for optimizing flow dynamics, eliminating dead zones and improving pressure transmission accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 9.
However, the combination fails to disclose the inner surface of the support body further comprises a further conical profile section arranged between the cylindrical profile section and the second side of the cavity. Wohlgemuth discloses the inner surface of the support body (support element-20) further comprises a further conical profile section arranged between the cylindrical profile section and the second side of the cavity (See Fig 2 which shows a conical shape at the top and bottom of the support element-20; paragraphs 0016-0034, Fig 2, claims 18 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Wohlgemuth into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for optimizing flow dynamics, eliminating dead zones and improving pressure transmission accuracy.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 7.
However, the combination fails to disclose the inner surface of the support body (support element-20) comprises at least two conical profile sections (See Fig 2 which shows a conical shape at the top and bottom of the support element-20)., wherein a cone corresponding to a conical profile section at a second end of the cavity exhibits a smaller apex angle than a cone corresponding to a conical profile section at a first end of the cavity (paragraphs 0016-0034, Fig 2, claims 18 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Wohlgemuth into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for optimizing flow dynamics, eliminating dead zones and improving pressure transmission accuracy.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
However, the combination fails to disclose the pressure measuring cell comprises a coating on the inner surface of the support body. Wohlgemuth discloses the pressure measuring cell comprises a coating (metallization) on the inner surface of the support body (element-20). (Paragraph 0031)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Wohlgemuth into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for optimizing flow dynamics, eliminating dead zones and improving pressure transmission accuracy.
Claims 14-18, 20, 21, 26, 27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann+Hummel GmbH DE202007015980 (hereinafter “Mann”) in view of Ingrisch et al US6062088 (hereinafter “Ingrisch”) in further view of Continental Automotive GmbH DE102008026611 (hereinafter “Continental”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
However, the combination fails to disclose the inner surface of the support body comprises one or more concave profile sections. Continental discloses the inner surface of the support body (body-202) comprises one or more concave profile sections (wall-206; See Paragraphs 0023-0025, Fig 2, claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Continental into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for decreasing overpressure and increasing detection sensitivity.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
However, the combination fails to disclose the inner surface of the support body comprises one or more convex profile sections. Continental discloses the inner surface of the support body (body-302) comprises one or more convex profile sections (wall-306; See paragraph 0026-0027, Fig 3, claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Continental into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for decreasing overpressure and increasing detection sensitivity.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
However, the combination fails to disclose 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. Continental discloses the inner surface of the support body (body-202) comprises a parabolic profile (wall-206) extending from the second side of the cavity to the first side of the cavity (See Fig 2, Paragraph 0023-0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Continental into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for decreasing overpressure and reduced friction loss.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 16.
However, the combination fails to disclose the parabolic profile exhibits a larger curvature at the second side of the cavity than at the first side of the cavity. Continental discloses the parabolic profile (see fig 2) exhibits a larger curvature at the second side of the cavity than at the first side of the cavity. (See Fig 2, Paragraphs 0023-0025)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Continental into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for decreasing overpressure and reduced friction loss.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 16.
However, the combination fails to disclose the parabolic profile exhibits a smaller curvature at the second side of the cavity than at the first side of the cavity. Continental discloses the parabolic profile exhibits a smaller curvature at the second side of the cavity than at the first side of the cavity (recess-203; See Fig 2, Paragraph 0023-0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Continental into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for decreasing overpressure and reduced friction loss.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 14.
However, the combination fails to disclose the inner surface of the support body comprises at least a concave profile section and at least a convex profile section adjoining to one another forming a step-like profile. Continental discloses the inner surface of the support body (body-302) comprises at least a concave profile section and at least a convex profile section adjoining to one another forming a step-like profile (See paragraph 0026-0027, Fig 3, claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Continental into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for decreasing overpressure and increasing detection sensitivity.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
However, the combination fails to disclose the inner surface of the support body comprises a concave or convex profile section adjacent to a conical profile section. Continental discloses the inner surface of the support body (body-202/302) comprises a concave or convex profile section adjacent to a conical profile section (See paragraph 0026-0027, Fig 3, claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Continental into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for decreasing overpressure and increasing detection sensitivity.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
However, the combination fails to disclose the pressure measuring cell comprises a liner insert for the trough-shaped chamber, wherein the liner insert is arranged to cover at least part of the inner surface of the support body transversely delimiting the cavity. Continental discloses the pressure measuring cell (sensor arrangement-400) comprises a liner insert (element-409) for the trough-shaped chamber, wherein the liner insert is arranged to cover at least part of the inner surface of the support body transversely delimiting the cavity (See Fig 4; Paragraphs 0028-0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Continental into Mann for the purpose of decreasing potential damage. The modification would allow for providing critical protection against aggressive process environments while isolating electrical signals to maintain measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
However, the combination fails to disclose the liner insert is made of a urea-resistant elastomer. Continental discloses the liner insert (element-409) is made of a urea-resistant elastomer (See Fig 4; Paragraphs 0028-0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Continental into Mann for the purpose of decreasing potential damage. The modification would allow for providing critical protection against aggressive process environments while isolating electrical signals to maintain measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the transducer according to claim 31.
However, the combination fails to disclose a dosing unit for dosing an exhaust gas reduction medium. Continental discloses a dosing unit (exhaust gas aftertreatment) for dosing an exhaust gas reduction medium (Paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Continental into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for reducing harmful gas emissions and optimizing engine efficiency and torque.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann+Hummel GmbH DE202007015980 (hereinafter “Mann”) in view of Ingrisch et al US6062088 (hereinafter “Ingrisch”) further in view of Continental Automotive GmbH DE102008026611 (hereinafter “Continental”) in further view of Ooya US20120240683.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish further in view of Continental discloses the cell according to claim 14.
However, the combination fails to disclose the inner surface of the support body comprises at least two concave or convex profile sections, wherein adjacent concave or convex profile sections adjoin to one another forming a step- like profile. Ooya discloses the inner surface of the support body (support body12) comprises at least two concave or convex profile sections, wherein adjacent concave or convex profile sections adjoin to one another forming a step- like profile (Inner wall-33a comprises the profile design forming the step-like profile design). (See Paragraph 0043, Fig 1, 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Ooya into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for enhancing linear deflection and decrease overpressure.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann+Hummel GmbH DE202007015980 (hereinafter “Mann”) in view of Ingrisch et al US6062088 (hereinafter “Ingrisch”) in further view of Jacob et al US707881 (hereinafter “Jacob”).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Mann in view of Ingrish discloses the cell according to claim 1.
However, the combination fails to disclose the inner surface of the support body exhibits a roughness Ra < 3.0 pm. Jacob discloses the inner surface of the support body exhibits a roughness Ra < 3.0 pm. (Col 3 line11-27, Claim 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Jacob into Mann for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for enhancing stabilizing boundaries and improving pressure transfer predictability.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eltek WO2016103171 discloses a pressure-sensor device (1) has: - a component sensitive to pressure, comprising a sensor body (5), with an elastically deformable membrane part (5a), and at least one detection element (6) for detecting a deformation of the membrane (5a); - a structure (2, 3) for housing or supporting the pressure-sensitive component, having at least one passageway (15) for a fluid the pressure of which is to be detected, the housing or supporting structure (2, 3) comprising a supporting body (2) with respect to which the sensor body (5) is positioned in such a way that its membrane part (5a) is exposed to the fluid coming out of the passageway (15), the supporting body (2) having a hydraulic-connection portion (2a) and a duct (14) that extends from the hydraulic-connection portion (2a); - at least one elastically deformable body (16), formed with one or more elastically deformable or compressible materials, comprising at least one from among: - a compressible compensation element (20, 21), configured for compensating any possible variations in volume of the fluid; - a sealing element (13, 17); configured for providing a seal with respect to at least one of the housing or supporting structure (2, 3), and the sensor body (5); and - a supporting element (23), configured for supporting or positioning the sensor body (5) with respect to the housing or supporting structure (2, 3). At least one from among the compressible compensation element (16), the sealing element (13, 17) and the supporting element (23) is overmoulded on at least one of the housing or supporting structure (2, 3) and the sensor body (5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights