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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (drawn to non-stoichiometric coatings comprising Aluminum (carbide, nitride, or oxide); including claims 1–15, 17, 18, 20, and 21, and selecting “Al” as the element among the available options (not elected species II–V)) in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16 and 19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/15/2026. Notably, any reference to the remaining non-elected elements/compounds should be deleted from claims 1, 2, 12, and 15 (chromium oxide, chromium nitride, silicon oxide, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, titanium oxide, titanium carbide, titanium nitride, zirconium oxide, or rare earth oxides).
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) 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (JP 2011002393 A), hereinafter referred to as Yamada, in view of Natori (JP 2002084011).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Yamada teaches, “A diaphragm (Fig. 1–3, ref. # 22) for hermetically separating a first space from a second space that is configured to contain a fluid medium (28 on 22 separating permeation of hydrogen gas through 20), which includes hydrogen, the diaphragm comprising: a metallic material (20) disposed to face towards the second space; a coating (28) disposed between the metallic material and the second space, wherein the coating is configured for reducing the permeability for molecular and/or atomic hydrogen (see para. [0021–0038, 0057]);
Notably, regarding claim 15, Yamada teaches the pressure sensor/transducer limitations (see para. [0026–0030]; Fig. 2, ref. # 10, 22, 30, 34, 24, 26).
Regarding claims 2, 17 and 20, Natori teaches, “wherein the coating comprises a non-stoichiometric carbide mixture (1-y)M-yMC.sub.x (4) comprises a non-stoichiometric oxide mixture (1-y)M-yMO.sub.x (with 0<x<x.sub.M,O and 0<y<=1; where M=Al with x.sub.Al,O=1.5,
For claims 1, 2, and 15, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamada’s invention for at least the purpose of improving the hydrogen blocking efficiency of the membrane while further ensuring reduced stress and defective adhesiveness between layers.
Regarding claim 5, Yamada teaches, “wherein the coating is thinner than the thickness of the metallic material or wherein the thickness of the coating does not exceed 10% of the thickness of the diaphragm (see thickness of 28 vs 20).”
Regarding claim 6, the claimed “wherein the coating has a coefficient of thermal expansion” and “wherein the metallic material has a coefficient of thermal expansion” are taught by each of the metal material of Yamada (see ref. # 20, para. [0029]) and the coating of Natori (see ref. # 28, para. [0032–0033]) (both approximately in the range of 7 to 9 * 10-6/°C and 7 to 12 * 10-6/°C). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada and Natori’s invention to include “wherein at an interface between the metallic material and the coating the coefficient of thermal expansion of the coating does not differ by more than 50% from the coefficient of thermal expansion of the metallic material.”
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Yamada and Natori’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring the expansion of the materials is nearly uniform to prevent large fluctuations/deviations at the interface, which ensures more accurate measurement results when detecting variables such as pressure or temperature.
Regarding claim 11, Yamada teaches, “further comprising an internal coating for reducing the permeability for molecular and/or atomic hydrogen, which internal coating is arranged in the second space on a side of the metallic material of the diaphragm that is disposed to face away from the fluid medium (see para. [0038]; layers of 28 interpreted as additional coatings reducing permeability of hydrogen and arranged as claimed).”
Regarding claim 13, Yamada teaches, “wherein at least a portion of the diaphragm is defined by a thickness of less than 500 μm (see para. [0026]).”
Claim(s) 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (JP 2011002393 A) in view of Natori (JP 2002084011), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nagasaka et al. (JP 2006038540 A), hereinafter referred to as Nagasaka.
Regarding claims 14 and 21, Yamada in combination with Natori discloses that the metal stem 20 is made of SUS (see para. [0029] of Yamada). Yamada in combination with Natori does not teach, “wherein the metallic material is a fine-grained steel having a structure of martensite, bainite, needle ferrite, Widmannstätten ferrite or a mixture of these structures; a structure of martensite with partially coherent or incoherent precipitates.” However, Nagasaka teaches the deficiencies of Yamada and Natori (see para. [0004]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada and Natori’s invention to include wherein the metallic material is a fine-grained steel having a structure of martensite, bainite, needle ferrite, Widmannstätten ferrite or a mixture of these structures; a structure of martensite with partially coherent or incoherent precipitates.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Yamada and Natori’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring highly accurate and reliable measuring systems, as described by Nagasaka.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 3–4, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein the coating comprises a non-stoichiometric mixture (1-y)M-yMO.sub.x or (1-y)M-yMN.sub.x or (1-y)M-yMC.sub.x with a gradient within the coating such that within the coating the proportion y gradually increases with increasing distance from the metallic material; or wherein the coating comprises a non-stoichiometric mixture (1-y)M-yMO.sub.x or (1-y)M-yMN.sub.x or (1-y)M-yMC.sub.x with a gradient within the coating such that within the coating the proportion x gradually increases with increasing distance from the metallic material; or wherein the coating comprises a non-stoichiometric mixture (1-y)M-yMO.sub.x or (1-y)M-yMN.sub.x or (1-y)M-yMC.sub.x with a gradient within the coating such that within the coating the proportion x and the proportion y gradually increase with increasing distance from the metallic material.”
Regarding claims 7–8, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “further comprising at least one further coating; wherein the at least one further coating is arranged on a side of the coating that faces away from the metallic material; andw herein the at least one further coating comprises stoichiometric oxide, carbide or nitride.”
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “further comprising an adhesion promoter layer that prevents delamination of the coating from the metallic material of the diaphragm; wherein the adhesion promoter layer is arranged between the metallic material of the diaphragm and the coating; and wherein the adhesion promoter layer comprises aluminum or rare earth metals or a refractory metal including titanium, vanadium, chromium, zirconium, niobium, hafnium, tantalum, molybdenum, or tungsten.”
Regarding claims 18 and 10, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “further comprising an adhesion promoter layer that prevents delamination of the coating from the metallic material of the diaphragm; wherein the adhesion promoter layer is arranged between the metallic material of the diaphragm and the coating; and wherein the adhesion promoter layer comprises aluminum or rare earth metals or a refractory metal including zirconium or tungsten.”
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “the internal coating comprises a non-stoichiometric carbide mixture (1-y)M-yMC.sub.x (
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach pressure sensing devices with diaphragms and materials, configured similarly to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights