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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment, filed 07/14/2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 5, filed 07/14/2026, with respect to the claim objections to claims 2, 8, and 11-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant has amended the claims to overcome the objections. The claim objections to claims 2, 8, and 11-15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 5, filed 07/14/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 5 has been rendered moot by the cancellation of claim 5.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 5-7, filed 07/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 8-15 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Furuhata (US 20190162619 A1) and Skerl (US 20100056888 A1).
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.
Claim 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swoboda (US 20130247644 A1) in view of Furuhata (US 20190162619 A1) and Skerl (US 20100056888 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Swoboda teaches a pressure sensor for pressure measurement in an aggressive medium comprising:
a base element [Fig. 1 Item 2];
a movable element [Fig. 1 Item 5 “membrane”] adapted to move at least in part based on an external pressure [0015 “…a force transducer which is in contact with the membrane for detecting flexing of the flexible membrane when the flexible membrane is exposed to the pressure present at the location”];
a flexible element [Fig. 1 Item 3] arranged on the base element inside the pressure sensor [see Fig. 1], wherein the flexible element includes a piezoelectric or piezoresistive structure or material [0048 “…the force transducer 3 (e.g., a piezoresistive pressure sensor…”] to facilitate determining the external pressure [0015 “…a force transducer which is in contact with the membrane for detecting flexing of the flexible membrane when the flexible membrane is exposed to the pressure present at the location”];
wherein the movable element is mechanically in contact with the flexible element [0015 “…a force transducer which is in contact with the membrane”, see also Fig. 1].
Swoboda teaches a protrusion element extending from the movable element for mechanical transmission of pressure from the movable element to the flexible element [see examiner Fig. 1 below], but fails to teach the protrusion is tapered.
Furuhuta teaches the protrusion is tapered [Fig. 8 Item 322].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Swoboda and incorporate the teachings of Furuhuta to include the protrusion is tapered. Doing so configures the system to “…effectively reduce an occurrence of so-called “sticking” which is a phenomenon in which the protrusion 32 sticks to the substrate 2 when the protrusion 32 and the substrate 2 are brought into contact with each other”, as recognized by Furuhuta par. 0151.
The combination of Swoboda and Furuhuta teach a tapered protrusion, but fail to teach the tapered protrusion element includes a tappet.
Skerl teaches the tapered protrusion element includes a tappet [Fig. 3 Items 212 and 213].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the combination of Swoboda and Furuhuta and further modify with the teachings of Skerl to include the tapered protrusion element includes a tappet. Doing so configures the system to provide “…a pressure-dependent deformation of the associated pressure measuring membranes…”, as recognized by Skerl par. 0061.
Regarding claim 2, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according to claim 1, wherein the pressure sensor is an implantable pressure sensor [Swoboda 0015 “A pressure sensor that is implantable within a living being for detecting a pressure…”], which implantable pressure sensor is adapted for being inserted into a human or animal blood circulation [Swoboda 0015 “…detecting a pressure (e.g., intracranial pressure (ICP), blood pressure, lung pressure, etc.) present at a location…”].
Regarding claim 4, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according to any one of the previous claims claim 1, wherein the movable element comprises a membrane [Swoboda Fig. 1 Item 5, see also Swoboda 0043 “The implantable pressure sensor 120 comprises a rigid housing 1 having an elastic or flexible membrane 5…”].
Examiner Figure 1
PNG
media_image1.png
533
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according to claim 1, wherein the protrusion exerts a mechanical force on the flexible element [see Swoboda Fig. 1 where the force vector of ICP is displacing the membrane, and inherently the attached protrusion, towards the “flexible member” item 3], wherein the mechanical force depends at least in part on a position of the movable element [this is an inherent property provided by Hooke’s Law, wherein force increases and displacement increases].
Regarding claim 9, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according to claim 1, wherein the flexible element [Swoboda Fig. 1 Item 3] comprises a rectangular membrane [Swoboda 0063 “…the force transducer 3 is a silicone die that has a very thin sensitive membrane…”].
Regarding claim 11, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according to claim 1, wherein the movable element comprises a first rigidity [Swoboda 0043 “elastic or flexible membrane”] and the flexible element comprises a second rigidity [Swoboda 0063 “silicon die”];
wherein a characteristic of the pressure sensor is determined by one of the flexible element or the movable element having a higher rigidity [Swoboda 0015 “…wherein the known force is used to calibrate for a stiffness associated with the flexible membrane in measuring the pressure at the location”].
Regarding claim 14, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a means for determining an electrical signal caused by a strain in the flexible element based at least in part on a movement of the movable element [Swoboda 0048 “When the force transducer 3 (…) detects the pressure, its electrical signal corresponding to the pressure is first amplified by the amplifier 125 and is digitized by the microcontroller 123 before being wirelessly transmitted (e.g., an ICP signal) to the transceiver 122A via the emitter LED 8. An LED receiver 33 then passes this to a microcontroller 131 for processing and ultimate display 133 or other output to the operator or user”].
Regarding claim 15, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according to claim 14, further comprising a means for wirelessly transmitting the determined electrical signal or any information based on the determined electrical signal as an analogue or a digital signal [Swoboda 0048 “…its electrical signal corresponding to the pressure is first amplified by the amplifier 125 and is digitized by the microcontroller 123 before being wirelessly transmitted (e.g., an ICP signal) to the transceiver 122A via the emitter LED 8”].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 20050134452 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according to claim 1, wherein the cavity formed at least in part by the base element and the movable element [see Examiner Fig. 1 above, the space between Item 3 and Item 5 is being interpreted as the cavity], but fail to teach the flexible element is arranged within a hermetically sealed cavity.
Smith teaches the flexible element is arranged within a hermetically sealed cavity [0058 “…a piezoelectric crystal element is hermetically sealed”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Swoboda and incorporate the teachings of Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl to include the flexible element is arranged within a hermetically sealed cavity. Doing so configures the system to protect the flexible member from contaminants, enhance reliability, extend service life, and ensure accurate measurements even in harsh environments.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lichtscheidl (US 7413547 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according claim 1, wherein the flexible element comprises one piezoresistive element, but fail to teach the flexible element comprises more than one piezoelectric or piezoresistive circuit and wherein the more than one piezoelectric or piezoresistive circuits are electrically connected as resistor bridge.
Lichtscheidl teaches more than one piezoelectric or piezoresistive circuit and wherein the more than one piezoelectric or piezoresistive circuits are electrically connected as resistor bridge [Figs. 2A-2C, see also col. 4 lns. 47-52 “In terms of pressure sensors, this approach may be used with various types including piezoresistive, strain gauge, piezoelectric, etc., but is described herein with reference to FIGS. 2A-2C in the context of a silicon piezoresistive wheatstone bridge type pressure sensor for sake of illustration”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl and incorporate the teachings of Lichtscheidl to include the flexible element comprises more than one piezoelectric or piezoresistive circuit and wherein the more than one piezoelectric or piezoresistive circuits are electrically connected as resistor bridge. Doing so configures the system to use a known resistor bridge configuration that provides high sensitivity, accurate measurement, temperature compensation, and linear response for detecting small changes in resistance caused by strain or pressure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young (US 20110066046 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according to claim 1, wherein Swodoba further teaches the flexible element, but fails to teach wherein the flexible element is manufactured integrally.
Young teaches wherein the flexible element is manufactured integrally [0029 “The MEMS sensor can be implemented as a capacitive pressure sensor or a piezoresistive pressure sensor”, the examiner notes that applicant’s specification page 7 lines 13-16 recognizes that MEMS technology provides a “cost efficient and highly precise/reproducible integrally manufacturing technique…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl and incorporate the teachings of Young to include wherein the flexible element is manufactured integrally. Doing so configures the system to have an miniature size, improving patient comfort as well as high sensitivity and precision, with MEMS sensors able to detect very small pressure changes, and reduced power consumption.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crivelli (US 20110021887 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according to claim 1, wherein Swodoba further discloses a base element, but fail to teach the base element comprises or essentially consists of titanium, stainless steel, glass, ceramic, or glass-ceramic.
Crivelli teaches the base element comprises glass [0048 “It is preferred that the base plate be made from a borosilicate glass…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl and incorporate the teachings of Crivelli to include the base element comprises glass. Doing so configures the base to have a high biocompatibility, strong chemical resistance, low thermal expansion, good mechanical stability, and superior hermeticity to extend the longevity of the device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eigler (US 20050288722 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl teach the pressure sensor according to claim 1, wherein the movable element is disclosed, but fails to teach the movable element comprises or essentially consists of titanium, stainless steel, glass, ceramic, or glass-ceramic.
Eigler teaches the movable element comprises titanium [0215 “titanium membrane”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Swoboda, Furuhuta, and Skerl and incorporate the teachings of Eigler to include the movable element comprises titanium. Doing so configures the system to ensure “tissue overgrowth will minimally affect the relatively reduced range of motion, thus minimizing errors in the sensed pressure reading”, as recognized by Eigler para. 0215.
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 JONATHAN M HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730-1630 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)272-4233. 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.
/JONATHAN M HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights