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 § 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.
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 1, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,330,547 issued to Drewes et al. (“Drewes”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,252,009 issued to Kosh et al. (“Kosh”).
As for claim 1, Drewes discloses a pressure measuring cell (Fig. 2a) having a pressure sensor (11) and evaluation electronics (30) which are integrated into the pressure measuring cell, wherein
the evaluation electronics (30) of the pressure measuring cell are exclusively supplied with energy from a 4-20 mA interface (col. 6, line 66 - col. 7, line 5; also note that this limitation describes the intended use of the pressure measuring cell - i.e. to supply energy to the pressure measuring cell only through the claimed interface); and
a displacer (12) is arranged in the pressure measuring cell, on which the evaluation electronics (30) are positioned (see Fig. 2a).
Drewes does not disclose that the evaluation electronics comprise an application specific integrated circuit. Drewes discloses that the evaluation electronics has an electronic circuit that processes signals from the pressure sensor (col. 6, lines 13-17).
However, Kosh discloses evaluation electronics that comprise an application specific integrated circuit (col. 4, lines 28-32). Kosh discloses that the evaluation electronics comprising the application specific integrated circuit processes signals from a pressure sensor (col. 4, lines 24-32).
Because Drewes and Kosh both disclose evaluation electronics for processing signals, 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 evaluation electronics that comprise and application specific integrated circuit of Kosh for the evaluation electronics of Drewes to achieve the predictable result of providing evaluation electronics that process signals from the pressure sensor.
In the event that Applicant does not believe that Drewes discloses that the evaluation electronics are exclusively supplied with energy from a 4-20 mA interface, the examiner notes that Kosh discloses evaluation electronics (Kosh: 130, 132) that are exclusively supplied with energy from a 4-20 mA interface (Kosh: 160; col. 7, lines 1-13). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Drewes and Kosh to be supplied with energy as disclosed by Kosh in order to simplify the interface connections of the pressure measuring cell. This combination of Drewes and Kosh at least discloses structure that is capable of performing the claimed function of being exclusively supplied by energy as claimed.
As for claim 8, Drewes as modified by Kosh discloses that the pressure measuring cell operates according to one or more of a capacitive (Drewes: col. 4, lines 43-47) or a resistive measuring principle.
As for claim 10, Drewes as modified by Kosh discloses that the pressure measuring cell is a pressure measuring cell for measuring an absolute pressure (Drewes: col. 4, lines 59-63).
As for claim 11, Drewes as modified by Kosh discloses that the pressure measuring cell is a pressure measuring cell for measuring a relative pressure (Drewes: col. 4, lines 59-63 and col. 5, line 64 - col. 6, line 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,330,547 issued to Drewes et al. (“Drewes”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,252,009 issued to Kosh et al. (“Kosh”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 10,816,424 issued to Fadell et al. (“Fadell”).
As for claim 3, Drewes as modified by Kosh discloses the pressure measuring cell according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) and that the pressure measuring cell comprises a diaphragm (Drewes: 22) and a diaphragm seal medium adjacent the diaphragm (Drewes: col. 5, lines 45-51).
Drewes as modified by Kosh does not disclose that the evaluation electronics comprise a temperature sensor preferably for detecting a temperature of the diaphragm seal medium.
However, Fadell discloses evaluation electronics (58) that comprise a temperature sensor (28) detecting a temperature of a diaphragm seal medium (Abstract).
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 evaluation electronics of Drewes and Kosh to include the temperature sensor as disclosed by Fadell in order to compensate for changes in density of the diaphragm seal medium (Fadell: Abstract).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,330,547 issued to Drewes et al. (“Drewes”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,252,009 issued to Kosh et al. (“Kosh”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of WO 2019/120776 A1 by Karweck et al.
U.S. Patent 11,662,265 issued to Karweck et al. (“Karweck”) is used as an English-language equivalent reference of WO 2019/120776 A1.
As for claim 4, Drewes as modified by Kosh discloses the pressure measuring cell according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Drewes as modified by Kosh does not disclose that the evaluation electronics implement a calibration function through which the pressure measuring cell can be calibrated by the evaluation electronics.
However, Karweck discloses evaluation electronics that implement a calibration function through which the pressure measuring cell can be calibrated by the evaluation electronics (col. 6, lines 15-35).
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 evaluation electronics of Drewes and Kosh to implement a calibration function as disclosed by Karweck in order to ensure that the measured pressure value is correct (Karweck: col. 6, lines 15-35).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,330,547 issued to Drewes et al. (“Drewes”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,252,009 issued to Kosh et al. (“Kosh”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 11,496,254 issued to Alley et al. (“Alley”).
As for claim 4, Drewes as modified by Kosh discloses the pressure measuring cell according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Drewes as modified by Kosh does not disclose that the evaluation electronics are SIL 2 certified.
However, Alley discloses evaluation electronics that are SIL 2 certified (col. 1, lines 36-45 and col. 2, lines 20-23).
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 evaluation electronics of Drewes and Kosh to be SIL 2 certified as disclosed by Alley in order to reduce risk.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,330,547 issued to Drewes et al. (“Drewes”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,252,009 issued to Kosh et al. (“Kosh”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 5,377,524 issued to Wise et al. (“Wise”).
As for claim 6, Drewes as modified by Kosh discloses the pressure measuring cell according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Drewes as modified by Kosh does not disclose that the evaluation electronics have a measuring frequency of at least 1 Hz with a precision of at least 12 bits.
However, Wise discloses evaluation electronics that have a measuring frequency of at least 1 Hz (Abstract) with a precision of at least 12 bits (Abstract).
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 evaluation electronics of Drewes and Kosh to have the measuring frequency and precision as disclosed by Wise in order to provide measurements with high resolution and high speed (Wise: col. 2, lines 33-39).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,330,547 issued to Drewes et al. (“Drewes”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,252,009 issued to Kosh et al. (“Kosh”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of U.S. Patent 11,346,698 issued to Harsh et al. (“Harsh”).
As for claim 9, Drewes as modified by Kosh discloses the pressure measuring cell according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Drewes as modified by Kosh does not disclose that the pressure measuring cell is functional at an operating temperature of up to 150°C.
However, Harsh discloses a pressure measuring cell that is functional at an operating temperature of up to 150°C (col. 18, lines 21-32).
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 pressure measuring cell of Drewes and Kosh to function at an operating temperature as disclosed by Harsh in order to allow the measurement of high temperature gases (Harsh: col. 18, lines 21-32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
