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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of “the flexible membrane comprises an external surface, that is outside of the hermetically closed cavity and is straight, and an internal surface, that is within the cavity and curved.” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office Action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of “the flexible membrane comprises an external surface, that is outside of the hermetically closed cavity and is straight, and an internal surface, that is within the cavity and curved.” is not described in the specification in such a way to reasonable convey to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art how the flexible membrane has a straight external surface and a curved internal surface. The only disclosure or illustration of a curved internal surface appears to be when pressure is applied to the flexible membrane. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will treat the claim as referring to the curved internal surface when pressure is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnold et al US20180160922 (hereinafter “Arnold”)
Regarding independent claim 1, Arnold discloses a sensor (pressure sensor package-400), comprising:
a housing (substrate-420 and housing-450 combine to create housing);
a flexible membrane (cap-480) which, together with the housing, forms a hermetically closed cavity (paragraph 0030); and
a sensor element (pressure sensing die-410), arranged in the hermetically closed cavity, configured to measure an external pressure on the flexible membrane (Paragraph 0027 discloses detecting strain) based on a pressure of a gas (Paragraph 0030-0031) in the hermetically closed cavity (Paragraph 0031, Fig 4C). (Paragraph 0027)
Regarding claim 2, Arnold discloses the sensor element (die-410) is a pressure sensor and configured to measure the external pressure on the flexible membrane (cap-480) based on the pressure of gas (Paragraph 0027 and 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 3, Arnold discloses the gas is air. (Paragraph 0030-0031)
Regarding independent claim 8, Arnold discloses a sensor (package-400), comprising:
a housing (substrate-420 and housing-450 combine to create the housing) comprising:
an upper section (housing-450),
a sidewall (wall-451 extend), and
a bottom section (substrate-420) connected to the upper section via the sidewall (See Fig 4A and 4C);
a flexible membrane (cap-480) extending between sides of the sidewall (See Fig 4A and 4C) and forming a hermetically closed cavity with the sidewall and the bottom section (Paragraphs 0029-0031); and
a sensor element (die-410), arranged in the hermetically closed cavity and on the bottom section of the housing (See Fig 4A), configured to measure an external pressure on the flexible membrane (Paragraphs 0027-0031).
Regarding claim 9, Arnold discloses the upper section (housing-450) has an external diameter smaller than an internal diameter of the sidewall (wall-451) and comprises an exterior portion in contact with an interior portion of the sidewall (See Fig 4A and 4C). (Paragraphs 0027-0031).
Regarding claim 10, Arnold discloses an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (ASIC-436) on the bottom section (substrate-420) of the housing. (Paragraphs 0027-0028)
Regarding claim 11, Arnold discloses the sensor element (die-410) is configured to measure the external pressure on the flexible membrane (cap-480) based on a pressure of a gas in the hermetically closed cavity. (Paragraph 0027 and 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 13, Arnold discloses the upper section (housing-450) comprises an internal hole (See Fig 4A and 4C) having a first section (cavity-485) with a first diameter and a second section (cavity-452) with a second diameter different from the first diameter. (Paragraphs 0029-0031)
Regarding claim 14, Arnold discloses the upper section (housing-450) extends from a surface of the housing to the second section (cavity-452), and wherein the first diameter of the upper section is smaller than the second diameter of the second section (cavity-485). (Paragraphs 0029-0031)
Regarding independent claim 15, Arnold discloses a sensor (package-400), comprising:
a housing (substrate-420 and housing-450 combine to create the housing) comprising a block (housing-450) comprising a hole (space-485 connects to aperture-470 and to cavity-452);
a flexible membrane (cap-480) residing on a surface of the block and over the hole to form a hermetically closed cavity with the housing (Paragraphs 0029-0031); and
a sensor element (die-410), arranged in the hermetically closed cavity, configured to measure an external pressure on the flexible membrane based on at least one of:
a pressure of a gas in the hermetically closed cavity, or
an amount of time of a time of flight of an optical pulse or a sound pulse emitted by the sensor element reflected from the flexible membrane (Paragraph 0031, Fig 4C). (Paragraph 0027)
Regarding claim 16, Arnold discloses the hole (space-485 connects to aperture-470 and to cavity-452); has an upper section (space-485) with a first diameter and a lower section (space-452) with a second diameter smaller than the first diameter. (Paragraphs 0029-0031)
Regarding claim 19, Arnold discloses an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (ASIC) (ASIC-436) arranged in the hermetically closed cavity. (Paragraphs 0027-0028)
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.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al US20180160922 (hereinafter “Arnold”) in view of Stein et al US20140107796 (hereinafter “Stien”)
Regarding claim 4, Arnold discloses the sensor according to claim 1.
However, Arnold fails to disclose the sensor element is an optical sensor or an ultrasonic sensor and configured to measure the external pressure on the flexible membrane based on the amount of time of the time of flight of the optical pulse or the sound pulse.
Stien discloses the sensor element (sensor-100) is an optical sensor or an ultrasonic sensor and configured to measure the external pressure on the flexible membrane (Paragraph 00211 discloses pressure applied to surfaces 3318 and 3120 is transferred to surfaces 3112 and 3114) based on the amount of time of the time of flight (Phase detector-414, paragraph 0154 discloses using time of flight) of the optical pulse or the sound pulse (See Paragraph 0154). (See also Paragraphs 0058-0062, 0153 and 0209-0215 which discloses using one or more sensors to perform time of flight measurements to determine deflection)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Stein into Arnold for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for more accurately determining how far the diaphragm moved which can increase detection accuracy.
Regarding claim 12, Arnold discloses the sensor according to claim 8.
However, Arnold fails to disclose the sensor element is configured to measure the external pressure on the flexible membrane based on an amount of time of a time of flight of an optical pulse or a sound pulse emitted by the sensor element reflected from the flexible membrane.
Stien discloses the sensor element (sensor-100) is configured to measure the external pressure on the flexible membrane (Paragraph 00211 discloses pressure applied to surfaces 3318 and 3120 is transferred to surfaces 3112 and 3114) based on an amount of time of a time of flight (Phase detector-414, paragraph 0154 discloses using time of flight) of an optical pulse or a sound pulse emitted by the sensor element reflected from the flexible membrane. (See Paragraph 0154). (See also Paragraphs 0058-0062, 0153 and 0209-0215 which discloses using one or more sensors to perform time of flight measurements to determine deflection)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Stein into Arnold for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for more accurately determining how far the diaphragm moved which can increase detection accuracy.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al US20180160922 (hereinafter “Arnold”) in view of Kusanale et al US20200326252 (hereinafter “Kusanale”).
Regarding claim 5, Arnold discloses the sensor according to claim 1.
However, Arnold fails to disclose the flexible membrane comprises a metal. Kusanale discloses the flexible membrane (diaphragm-150) comprises a metal. (See Paragraphs 0065)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Kusanale into Arnold for the purpose of creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for a stronger and more durable diaphragm that would reduce repair or replacement cost.
Regarding claim 6, Arnold in view of Kusanale discloses the sensor according to claim 5.
Furthermore, Arnold discloses the housing ( housing-450) comprises the metal. (Paragraph 0029)
Regarding claim 7, Arnold discloses the flexible membrane (cap-480) has an internal surface, that is within the cavity and curved. (See Fig 4A and 4C, 0029-0031)
However, Arnold fails to disclose the flexible membrane comprises an external surface, that is outside of the hermetically closed cavity and is straight, Kusanale discloses the flexible membrane (diaphgram-150) comprises an external surface (compartment-180, paragraph 0062), that is outside of the hermetically closed cavity and is straight (See Figs 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Kusanale into Arnold for the purpose of creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for a stronger and more durable diaphragm that would reduce repair or replacement cost.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al US20180160922 (hereinafter “Arnold”) in view of Bang US6076409.
Regarding claim 17, Arnold discloses the hole (space-485 connects to aperture-470 and to cavity-452) is through an entirety of the block. (Paragraphs 0029-0031)
However, Arnold fails to disclose the sensor further comprises: a stopper in the lower section and forming the hermetically closed cavity.
Bang discloses the sensor (assembly-10) further comprises: a stopper (stopper placed in fill port-32) in the lower section and forming the hermetically closed cavity. (Col 5 line 64- Col 6 line 30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Bang into Arnold for the purpose of creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow for increasing the seal of the cavity to prevent leaks which can caused measurement errors.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al US20180160922 (hereinafter “Arnold”) in view of Bang US6076409 in further view of Vogler US7311007.
Regarding claim 18, Arnold in view of Bang discloses the sensor according to claim 17.
However, the combination fails to disclose a pin extending from the sensor element and through the stopper. Vogler discloses a pin (pins 14-17) extending from the sensor element and through the stopper (part-2). (Col 4 lines 34-59 and Col 5 line 7-31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Vogler into the combination of Arnold and Bang for the purpose of creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow creating a smaller and secure connection between the sensor and processing or other components as desired.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al US20180160922 (hereinafter “Arnold”) in view of Vogler US7311007.
Regarding claim 20, Arnold discloses a pin (wires) extending from the ASIC (ASSIC-436).
However, Arnold fails to disclose the pins extend through the housing. Vogler discloses the pins (pins-14-17) extend through the housing (See Fig 1-3 and 5). (Col 4 lines 34-59 and Col 5 line 7-31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Vogler into the combination of Arnold and Bang for the purpose of creating a longer lasting device. The modification would allow creating a smaller and secure connection between the sensor and processing or other components as desired.
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 1-5, 8, 10-12, 15 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 7, 14 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,510,428 to Schaller et al (hereinafter “Schaller”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 15 and 17-20 of the instant application, applicants claims, a sensor, comprising: a housing; a flexible membrane which, together with the housing, forms a hermetically closed cavity; and a sensor element, arranged in the hermetically closed cavity, configured to measure an external pressure on the flexible membrane based on at least one of: a pressure of a gas in the hermetically closed cavity, or an amount of time of a time of flight of an optical pulse or a sound pulse emitted by the sensor element reflected from the flexible membrane.
Schaller discloses a pressure sensor, comprising: a housing; a flexible membrane which, together with the housing, forms a hermetically closed cavity; a printed circuit board (PCB) that is in the hermetically closed cavity; a sensor element, in the hermetically closed cavity and on a top surface of the PCB, configured to detect a change in a physical property, of the flexible membrane, associated with an external pressure pressing inward into the flexible membrane of the hermetically closed cavity; an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) semiconductor die, in the hermetically closed cavity and on the top surface of the PCB, electrically connected to the sensor element; a gaseous medium in the hermetically closed cavity; and a first pin, electrically connected to one of the sensor element or the ASIC semiconductor die, extending beyond a bottom surface of the PCB and through a lower surface of either the housing or a stopper within the housing. The time of flight limitations recited in claim 1 of the instant application are recited in claim 19 of Schaller.
Although the scope of claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 15 and 17-20 of the instant application and claims 1-2, 4, 7, 14 and 19-20 of the Schaller patent are very similar, the difference between the present claimed invention and the Schaller patent is that the instant application recites the same components and limitations with a higher generality in scope. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to use the teaching of Schaller as a general teaching to arrive at the instant application because the same elements are used to arrive at the same invention.
Claim 2 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 1 of Schaller.
Claim 3 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 2 of Schaller.
Claim 4 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 7 and 19 of Schaller.
Claim 5 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 4 of Schaller.
Claim 8 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 1 and 14 of Schaller.
Claim 10 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 1 and 14 of Schaller.
Claim 11 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 1 and 14 of Schaller.
Claim 12 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 19 of Schaller.
Claim 15 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 1, 14 and 19 of Schaller.
Claim 17 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 1, 14 and 20 of Schaller.
Claim 18 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 1, 12, 14, and 20 of Schaller.
Claim 19 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 1 and 14 of Schaller.
Claim 20 limitations of the instant application correspond to limitations found in claim 1, 12, 14, and 20 of Schaller.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dianov et al US6539136 (hereinafter “Dianov”) discloses a hydrostatic and/or fast-changing pressure by optical means, and are suitable for aerodynamic investigations of aircraft and small spacecraft, in robotics, including small force micro-clamps, in remote pressure monitoring (in wells, vessels, cylinders), in medicine and medical and biological investigations, hydroacoustics, security systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights