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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the limitation of “the structural element” in line 6 which should be changed to “the microelectromechanical structural element” to match the language previously used in the claim.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the limitation that the stiffening element “brings about” an electrical and/or magnetic shielding, which is not clearly worded and should be changed to “provides” or similar for clarity.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the limitation of “the spring element” which lacks antecedent basis as no such spring element has been previously disclosed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-25 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.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation that the stiffening element is provided in a second region located “on an opposite second side of the flexible carrier element.” It is not clear as to how “opposite” is to be interpreted as it could mean opposing ends, or a flip side of carrier element. Since the carrier element has not been disclosed as a plane or a beam or any other shape, it is not clear as to what would be “opposite.”
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation that a passivation medium is “introduced around the sensor element” however it is not clear if this represents a step of introducing the medium, or if it is a structural limitation which is equivalent to “surrounding” or similar.
Regarding claim 23, the claim comprises similar limitations to those of claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 15, 16, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tepass .US 2019/0313532.
Regarding claim 15, Tepass teaches as seen in fig. 1 and fig. 4, a mounting device for a microelectromechanical structure element and ASIC for integration into a higher-level system, wherein the mounting device comprises a flexible carrier element 3, the micromechanical structure (sensor module 2) and a stiffening element 8, wherein the structural element is applied to a first side of the flexible carrier (bottom of fig. 1) and the stiffening element is provided at last in a second region (top of fig. 1) on an opposite second side of the flexible carrier element.
Regarding claim 16, Tepass further teaches a structural component 8 which is applied to the first side of the carrier element 3 in the first region and at least partially encloses the structural element as claimed (fig 3).
Regarding claim 18, Tepass discloses a passivation medium 8 that is introduced around and at least partially covers the sensor element (paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 21, the stiffening element of Tepass is arranged such that the stiffening element 8 covers at least a surface of the first region when viewed vertically as seen in fig. 1.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Celik-Butler US 2010/0245114.
Regarding claim 15, Celik-Butler teaches a mounting device for a microelectromechanical structural element and ASIC for integration into a higher-level system, wherein the mounting device comprises a flexible carrier element 406, a micromechanical structural element 410 and a stiffening element 408, wherein the structural element 410 is applied to a first side of the flexible carrier (top side) in a first region and the stiffening element 408 is provided at least in a second region located on an opposite second side (bottom side) of the flexible carrier element.
Regarding claim 16, Celik-Butler teaches a structural component 402 which is applied to the first side of the carrier element in the first region and at least partially encloses the structural element 410 as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, the structural element of Celik-Butler has a micromechanical sensor element (paragraph 0035) and the structural component has an opening 424 as an access for surroundings to the sensor element such as the output interface 418.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepass and Mayer EP 2273261.
Regarding claim 17, Tepass teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the structural component having an opening as an access for surroundings to the sensor element. Mayer teaches a mounting for a sensor element 9 which includes a flexible carrier element 1 and a structural component 6 with an opening 7 as an access for surroundings to the structural element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Tepass and Mayer to provide a similar opening for use with a sensor such as a pressure sensor which may require access to a surrounding environment.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepass and Braman US 2007/0113702.
Regarding claim 19, Tepass discloses the claimed invention with the exception of the receptacle for a sealing element. Braman teaches a mounting device for a microelectromechanical structural element which includes a structural element 40 with a receptacle 54 for a sealing member 44. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Braman with those of Tepass in order to provide a seal and isolation between a cover and the sensor electronics for better protection.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepass and Zhe et al. US 2007/0013052.
Regarding claim 20, Tepass discloses the claimed invention with the exception of the stiffing element being at least partially metal and bringing about an electrical and/or magnetic shielding. Zhe teaches a MEMS sensor packaging system which includes a flexible substrate on which a MEMS sensor is mounted and a meshed metal layer which provides EMI shielding of the MEMS device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings Zhe with those of Tepass in order to provide a metallic layer for shielding the sensor from EMI interference to increase the accuracy of the sensor.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepass and Maegawa et al. US 2017/0336436.
Regarding claim 22, Tepass discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the spring element in or on the second region wherein the spring is part of the stiffening element. Maegawa teaches a housing for a sensor 12 as seen in fig. 2 in which a stiffening element 11 is provided with a spring portion (11b) thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Maegawa with those of Tepass in order to provide a similar spring portion for providing a spring force in the system on housing elements such as a cover similar to that of Tepass to ensure a tight contact between the elements.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepass and Braman.
Regarding claim 23, Tepass teaches as seen in fig. 1 and fig. 4, a mounting device for a microelectromechanical structure element and ASIC for integration into a higher-level system, wherein the mounting device comprises a flexible carrier element 3, the micromechanical structure (sensor module 2) and a stiffening element 8, wherein the structural element is applied to a first side of the flexible carrier (bottom of fig. 1) and the stiffening element is provided at last in a second region (top of fig. 1) on an opposite second side of the flexible carrier element. Tepass does not explicitly disclose the structural component as having a receptable arranged or the specifics of the housing as claimed. Braman teaches a housing for a sensor system which includes a structural component 40 comprising a receptacle for a sealing element, a cover 14 which partially presses against a structural element 24 and/or the sealing component and/or the sealing element (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Braman with those of Tepass in order to provide a housing and cover for the sensing electronics which would allow for a sealed removable covering allowing access to the sensing elements inside for assembly or replacement.
Regarding claim 24, in combination, the arrangement of the elements of Braman are in the claimed configuration (see fig. 1A).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepass, Braman and Maegawa.
Regarding claim 25, Tepass discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the spring element in or on the second region wherein the spring is part of the stiffening element. Maegawa teaches a housing for a sensor 12 as seen in fig. 2 in which a stiffening element 11 is provided with a spring portion (11b) thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Maegawa with those of Tepass in order to provide a similar spring portion for providing a spring force in the system on housing elements such as a cover similar to that of Tepass to ensure a tight contact between the elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights