DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/4/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,103. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 14 are broader recitations of respective claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,103.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,553,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1 and 14 are broader recitations of respective claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,553,751.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,492,926. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1 and 14 are broader recitations of respective claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,492,926.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harsh et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0400477 A1, hereinafter Harsh).
Regarding claim 1, Harsh teaches a sensor assembly (see Abstract; see also 14A-B, all elements) comprising: a substrate comprising an outer region, an inner region, and a middle region positioned between the outer region and the inner region (see Fig. 14 and 14A, substrate 20 includes outer (left) region, inner (right) region) and middle region between the outer (left) region and inner (right) region), the substrate further comprising electrical contact pads on at least the inner region (see Fig. 14B, substrate 20 comprises electrical contact pads 25 for connecting to contacts 51/52 of the sensor device 22); a housing coupled to the substrate at the outer region to provide a hermetic seal (see Fig. 14A and [0081], outer (left) region of the substrate 20 is encased in potting material (housing) 39 and forms a pressure seal, thus considered hermetically sealed); and a sensor device coupled to the substrate, via the electrical contact pads, at the inner region (see Fig. 12 and 14B, sensor device 22 coupled to the substrate via the electrical pads of conductors 24-27 as shown).
Regarding claim 5, Harsh above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Harsh teaches that the housing (39) comprises a gas-facing surface and an opposing surface opposite the gas-facing surface (see Fig. 14 and 14A, gas-facing surface considered the right gas facing surface and the opposing surface is on the left side facing surface as shown in Fig. 14), wherein the housing has a slot formed therethrough, and wherein the substrate is disposed in the slot such that the inner region of the substrate extends from the gas-facing surface (see Fig. 14, potting compound 39 surrounds the rectangular substrate 20 and thus forms a slot holding the substrate 20, wherein the inner (right) region of the substrate 20 extends ultimately from the gas facing surface as shown).
Regarding claim 14, Harsh teaches a method of manufacturing a sensor assembly (see Abstract; see also 14A-B, all elements; see also [0076]-[0085], method of manufacturing sensor assembly described), the method comprising: providing a substrate comprising an outer region, an inner region, and a middle region positioned between the outer region and the inner region (see Fig. 14-14A and [0076]-[0085], substrate 20 provided and includes outer (left) region, inner (right) region) and middle region between the outer (left) region and inner (right) region), the substrate further comprising electrical contact pads on at least the inner region (see Fig. 14B, substrate 20 comprises electrical contact pads 25 for connecting to contacts 51/52 of the sensor device 22); coupling a sensor device to the substrate at the inner region (see Fig. 12 and 14B, sensor device 22 coupled to the substrate via the electrical pads of conductors 24-27 as shown); and coupling the substrate to a housing at the outer region to form a hermetic seal (see Fig. 14A and [0081], outer (left) region of the substrate 20 is encased in potting material (housing) 39 and forms a pressure seal, thus considered hermetically sealed).
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.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harsh as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Halimi (US PGPUB 2020/0309582 A1, hereinafter Halimi).
Regarding claim 2, Harsh above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Harsh above fails to teach a conformal coating deposited on at least a portion of the sensor assembly.
Halimi teaches a sensor assembly (see Abstract; see also Fig. 11, sensor assembly 30), including a conformal coating deposited on at least a portion of the sensor assembly (see Fig. 11, conformal coating 53 covers the sensor assembly as shown).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Harsh such that a conformal coating was deposited on at least a portion of the sensor assembly as suggested by Halimi. This allows for a sensor assembly to be placed directly into fluid flow without being harmed by the liquid moving past as described by Halimi (see [0090]), thereby increasing the durability of the sensor assembly.
Regarding claim 15, Harsh above teaches all of the limitations of claim 14.
Harsh above fails to teach depositing a conformal coating on at least a portion of the sensor assembly, wherein the conformal coating is deposited using an atomic layer deposition process, and wherein the conformal coating comprises Al2O3.
Halimi teaches a sensor assembly (see Abstract; see also Fig. 11, sensor assembly 30), including a conformal coating deposited on at least a portion of the sensor assembly (see Fig. 11, conformal coating 53 covers the sensor assembly as shown); wherein the conformal coating may be deposited using an atomic layer deposition process (see [0091]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Harsh such that a conformal coating was deposited on at least a portion of the sensor assembly as suggested by Halimi. This allows for a sensor assembly to be placed directly into fluid flow without being harmed by the liquid moving past as described by Halimi (see [0090]), thereby increasing the durability of the sensor assembly.
Furthermore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the conformal coating such that was considered as a material for the conformal coating. This is because aluminum oxide is an electrical insulator with high thermal conductivity as is known in the art and would be suitable for the applications of both Harsh and Halimi. Finally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 3, 4, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harsh.
Regarding claim 3, Harsh above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Harsh teaches that the sensor device comprises a free-standing sensing element coupled to a support structure (see Fig. 14B, sensor device 22 floats via the support contacts 52).
Harsh fails to specifically teach that the sensor device is secured to the substrate such that the support structure is in perpendicular orientation relative to a gas flow direction.
However, Harsh further teaches that the sensor device is may be covered by a shield (see Fig. 14 and [0076], optional shield 18 is provided).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to orient the sensor device and substrate of Harsh in any rotational direction relative to fluid/gas flow direction. This is because by covering the sensor device of Harsh with a cylindrical shield as described, the sensor device would be capable of accurately measuring, in this case temperature, regardless of the orientation of the of the sensor device and substrate relative to the fluid/gas flow direction.
Regarding claim 4, Harsh above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Harsh teaches that the sensor device comprises a free-standing sensing element coupled to a support structure (see Fig. 14B, sensor device 22 floats via the support contacts 52).
Harsh fails to specifically teach that the sensor device is secured to the substrate such that the support structure is in parallel orientation relative to a gas flow direction.
However, Harsh further teaches that the sensor device is may be covered by a shield (see Fig. 14 and [0076], optional shield 18 is provided).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to orient the sensor device and substrate of Harsh in any rotational direction relative to fluid/gas flow direction. This is because by covering the sensor device of Harsh with a cylindrical shield as described, the sensor device would be capable of accurately measuring, in this case temperature, regardless of the orientation of the of the sensor device and substrate relative to the fluid/gas flow direction.
Regarding claim 17, Harsh above teaches all of the limitations of claim 14.
Harsh above fails to specifically teach prior to providing the substrate: machining the substrate, wherein the substrate is sapphire, and wherein the substrate is rounded, and metalizing electrical contact pads on the inner region of the substrate.
However, Harsh does teach that the substrate is sapphire (see [0078]) and wherein the substrate is metalized with electrical contact pads on the inner region of the substrate (see [0079], substrate 20 is metalized with the electrical contact pads 24-27).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method of Harsh such that the sapphire substrate was machined and such that the substrate was rounded. This would allow for the substrate to match the shape of the sensor of Harsh, thereby reducing the amount of sapphire required for the sensor assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11, 16, and 18-20 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 6-11, 16, and 18-20, Harsh in view of Halimi above represents the best art of record. However, Harsh in view of Halimi fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claims 6, 16, and 20.
Specifically, Harsh in view of Halimi fails to critically teach that the sensor device is coupled to the electrical contact pads via a first seal, wherein the substrate is secured to the housing at the outer region via a second seal, and wherein an o-ring is disposed between the substrate and the housing (claim 6); securing the sensor device to the substrate by forming a first seal between the electrical contact pads on the substrate and electrical contacts on the sensor device, wherein the sensor device comprises a free-standing sensing element coupled to a support structure, and wherein the sensor device is secured to the substrate such that the support structure is in perpendicular orientation relative to a gas flow direction, and securing the substrate to the housing by forming a second seal between the substrate and the housing (claim 16); OR wherein the housing comprises a gas-facing surface and an opposing surface opposite to the gas-facing surface, wherein the housing has a slot formed therethrough, and wherein the method further comprises, prior to coupling the substrate to the housing at the outer region, inserting the substrate coupled to the sensor device into the slot formed through the housing such that the inner region of the substrate extends from the gas-facing surface (claim 20).
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claims 6, 16, and 20 and the examiner can find no teachings for a sensor assembly or method of manufacturing a sensor assembly as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Claims 12 and 13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Harsh in view of Halimi above represents the best art of record. However, Harsh in view of Halimi fails to encompass all of the limitations of independent claim 12.
Regarding claim 12, Harsh teaches a sensor assembly (see Abstract; see also 14A-B, all elements) comprising: a multi-layered ceramic substrate (see [0078], ceramic substrate 20 may be a laminated structure and thus considered multi-layered) comprising an outer region, an inner region, and a middle region positioned between the outer region and the inner region (see Fig. 14 and 14A, substrate 20 includes outer (left) region, inner (right) region) and middle region between the outer (left) region and inner (right) region), the multi-layered ceramic substrate further comprising electrical contact pads on at least the inner region (see Fig. 14B, substrate 20 comprises electrical contact pads 25 for connecting to contacts 51/52 of the sensor device 22); a housing coupled to the multi-layered ceramic substrate at the outer region to provide a hermetic seal (see Fig. 14A and [0081], outer (left) region of the substrate 20 is encased in potting material (housing) 39 and forms a pressure seal, thus considered hermetically sealed); and a sensor device coupled to the multi-layered ceramic substrate, via the electrical contact pads, at the inner region (see Fig. 12 and 14B, sensor device 22 coupled to the substrate via the electrical pads of conductors 24-27 as shown).
Harsh fails to specifically teach a sensor assembly comprising: a multi-layered ceramic substrate comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the first end comprises a first outer region, an inner region, and a first middle region positioned between the first outer region and the inner region, wherein the second end comprises a second outer region, and a second middle region positioned between the second outer region and the inner region, wherein the multi-layered ceramic substrate comprises electrical contact pads formed between layers of the multi-layered ceramic substrate, the electrical contact pads extending throughout the multi-layered ceramic substrate from the first end to the second end; a housing coupled to the multi-layered ceramic substrate at the first middle region and at the second middle region to form a hermetic seal; a sensor device coupled to the substrate, via the electrical contact pads, at the inner region; and a conformal coating deposited on at least a portion of the sensor assembly.
Halimi teaches a sensor assembly (see Abstract; see also Fig. 11, sensor assembly 30), including a conformal coating deposited on at least a portion of the sensor assembly (see Fig. 11, conformal coating 53 covers the sensor assembly as shown).
However, Halimi also fails to teach a sensor assembly comprising: a multi-layered ceramic substrate comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the first end comprises a first outer region, an inner region, and a first middle region positioned between the first outer region and the inner region, wherein the second end comprises a second outer region, and a second middle region positioned between the second outer region and the inner region, wherein the multi-layered ceramic substrate comprises electrical contact pads formed between layers of the multi-layered ceramic substrate, the electrical contact pads extending throughout the multi-layered ceramic substrate from the first end to the second end; a housing coupled to the multi-layered ceramic substrate at the first middle region and at the second middle region to form a hermetic seal; a sensor device coupled to the substrate, via the electrical contact pads, at the inner region.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claim 12 and the examiner can find no teachings for a sensor assembly sensor assembly as particularly claimed and including the above limitations, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights