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
.
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 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.
Priority
US National Stage of PCT
Acknowledgment is made that this application is the US national phase of international application PCT/EP2023/053077 filed 02/08/2023 which designated the U.S. and claims the benefit of DE10 2022 104 265.0 filed 02/23/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s)
(IDS) submitted on 08/19/2024, 07/24/2025, 01/30/2026 is/are in compliance
with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Unsatisfactorily Reproducible:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l) and corresponding PCT rule 11.13(a),
fig(s). 1
requiring correction.
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
Different Parts with Same Number:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) and corresponding PCT Rule 11.13(m), because
reference character
“202”
has been used to designate both “substrate” (at least ¶ 0031) and “sensor element” (at least ¶ 0031); and
Same Part with Different Numbers:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) and corresponding PCT Rule 11.13(m) because of the inclusion of the same part being designated by different reference characters:
"202” (at least ¶ 0031) and "104" (at least ¶ 0031) have both been used to designate
“substrate”
.
Examiner notes that in fig. 1, the substrate appears to be 104, whereas the sensor element appears to be 202.
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive.
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. The Examiner generally suggests inclusion into the title the main element or method step which is considered novel/non-obvious and/or is the main element which is constructed differently than other pressure sensor arrangements. The Examiner is willing to hold in abeyance an amendment to the title; however, if a satisfactory title is not supplied by the Applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
The disclosure is objected to
because of the following informalities:
There are inconsistencies between the written specification and the drawings, see Drawing Objections for details.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language, and/or format for an abstract of the disclosure:
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Additionally the Examiner notes that 37 CFR 1.438 is summarized as:
Preferably 50-150 words. Should contain:
(A) Indication of field of invention.
(B) Clear indication of the technical problem.
(C) Summary of invention’s solution of the problem.
(D) Principal use or uses of the invention.
(E) Reference numbers of the main technical features placed between parentheses.
(F) Where applicable, chemical formula which best characterizes the invention.
Should not contain:
(A) Superfluous language.
(B) Legal phraseology such as “said” and “means.”
(C) Statements of alleged merit or speculative application.
(D) Prohibited items as defined in PCT Rule 9.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
superfluous language that can be implied (“In an embodiment’).
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 20-22, 24-26 and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Applicant cited Kober* et al (DE 102015121625 A1; hereafter “Kober”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Applicant cited Kober in view of newly cited Dabich et al (US 20150027168 A1; hereafter “Dabich”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding independent claim 20,
Kober teaches a pressure sensor arrangement (fig. 5, pressure sensor 21) (Title “Method For Producing A Pressure Measuring Device”; Abstract “method for producing a pressure measuring device for measuring a pressure, esp. An absolute pressure, a relative pressure or a differential pressure, with a carrier (3, 23, 41, 47) made of glass, esp. Borosilicate glass, and a pressure sensor (21, 49), which comprises a sensor element (1, 25, 37, 51) of silicon or a silicon-containing material connected via a joint with the carrier (3, 23, 41, 47), in which carrier (3, 23, 41, 47) and sensor element (1, 25, 37, 51) are arranged on each other and the joining between the carrier (3, 23, 41, 47) and the sensor element (1, 25, 37, 51) is generated, which is characterized in that the joint is produced by a spatially delimited region (9) of a surface layer (11) of the substrate (3, 23, 41, 47) facing the sensor element (1) being heated to above a glass transition temperature of the substrate (3, 23, 41, 47). 3, 23, 41, 47) is heated, and on the heating is followed by a cooling, in which the solidifying glass forms the join between the sensor element (1, 25, 37, 51) and the support (3), the join having a joining surface corresponding to a base of the previously heated region (9). equivalent”) comprising:
a sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) having a top side (top side of sensor element 25) and a bottom side (bottom side of sensor element 25),
wherein the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) comprises
a membrane (fig. 5, diaphragm 27) configured to be exposed to a medium (at once so envisage; additional obviousness analysis provided; see also background including paragraph before middle of page 2 “pressure sensors can be exposed directly to a medium under the pressure to be measured”) and
at least one detection element (transducer, exemplary as measuring bridge 31) configured to measure a pressure of the medium (second paragraph of page 8 “The pressure sensor shown here as an exemplary embodiment 21 includes an electromechanical transducer mounted on or in the measuring diaphragm 27 arranged, for example piezoresistive elements connected together to form a resistance measuring bridge 31 includes”);
a substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) serving as a carrier of the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25),
wherein the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) comprises glass (Abstract “carrier (3, 23, 41, 47) made of glass, esp. Borosilicate glass”; about middle of page 4 “The carrier is made of borosilicate glass”); and
a connection interface (interface between sensor element 25 and carrier 23; see fig. 1, area 9 between sensor element 1 and carrier 3), produced by laser welding (see fig. 1, laser 13 , arranged between the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) and the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) (about quarter of the way down page 4 “by means of a laser, in particular a pulse laser, in particular a pico or femtosecond laser”; about halfway on page 6 “To be targeted spatially on the area 9 the surface layer 11 of the carrier 3 limited heating is preferably an in 1 only schematically illustrated laser 13 used. Particularly suitable for this are pulse lasers which generate laser pulses of short duration. The energy supply caused by the laser pulses is spatially even more limited, the shorter the pulse duration. In that regard, for example, picosecond lasers are suitable. An even higher spatial limit can be achieved by the use of femtosecond lasers. Reaching the joining temperature is ensured by the duration and intensity of the irradiation”),
wherein the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) and the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) are mechanically firmly and hermetically connected to one another at the connection interface (interface between sensor element 25 and carrier 23; see fig. 1, area 9 between sensor element 1 and carrier 3) (third paragraph from bottom of page 3 “advantageous with regard to a reduction of thermo-mechanical stresses which can be transmitted to the sensor element via the joining surface”).
The Examiner notes with respect to the above teachings being shown in different figures, that while the reference does not expressly show all of the above claimed features clearly in a single depicted embodiment as a single figure, either one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisaged the
combination from the generic teachings thereof and/or specific possible choices of the structural components
thereof, or, in the alternative, it at least would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to nevertheless so combine the above features for the
purpose and combinations as proposed by said reference and as analyzed by the Examiner
including the citations and/or Examiner comments provided above in reference to the claimed features.
Pertinently, the Examiner further notes that "Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness", see Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). More particularly, it is Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kober’s method for producing a pressure measuring device of fig. 1 with the pressure measuring device of fig. 5 for the expected advantages as put forth by Kober, the Examiner emphasizing that fig. 5 shows a pressure measuring device produced by the method (first paragraph of page 8 “5 shows a first embodiment of a pressure measuring device produced by the method according to the invention”), and Kober teaches that the method improves the long-term stability of the measurement results including by reducing impairment of the measurement properties and/or differences in coefficients of thermal expansion and/or different moduli of elasticity, leading to reduction of thermo-mechanical stresses.
With further regard to the medium, the Examiner acknowledges that Kober does not explicitly state in the embodiment of fig. 5 that the pressure sensor is for a medium.
However:
It is the Examiner’s position that an ordinary artisan would at once understand that Kober’s fig. 5 is intended for measuring mediums, and more specifically fluid mediums, based on: the features and arrangements of fig. 5 as being of the general arrangement commonly utilized therefor (e.g., bore leading to membrane for measuring the pressure); the classifications (e.g., G01L classifications already recognized as pertaining to measuring fluid pressure); and/or the discussion in the background of the prior art which is likewise pertaining to the measuring (fluidic) mediums.
Furthermore, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is conventional to measure mediums such as gas and/or liquid fluid mediums with membrane type pressure sensors.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Kober reasonably teaches use with of the pressure to sensor by exposing to a (fluid) medium, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conventional application of measuring fluid mediums including gas &/or liquid, and the associated known configurations associated therewith, thereby increasing the utility/versatility and/or marketability.
Kober does not explicitly state that the sensor element and the substrate are mechanically firmly and hermetically connected to one another at the connection interface.
However:
It is the Examiner’s position that an ordinary artisan would at once understand that for reasonable operability Kober’s sensor element and substrate are reasonably mechanically firm as well as reasonably hermetically connected to one another at the connection (interface between sensor element 25 and carrier 23, connected via manufacturing method using picosecond laser).
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize the mechanical firmness and the hermeticity for the expected advantage of preventing loss of structural integrity.
Furthermore, and factually supporting the aforementioned assertion, Dabich teaches laser welding glass for hermeticity and mechanical firmness (Title “LASER WELDING TRANSPARENT GLASS SHEETS USING LOW MELTING GLASS OR THIN ABSORBING FILMS”; Abstract; [0002] “Many modern devices require hermetic environments to operate”; [0004] “While conventional laser welding of glass substrates can employ ultra-high laser power devices, this operation at near laser ablation often times damages the glass substrates and achieves a poor quality hermetic seal”; [0005] “laser welding or sealing process of a glass sheet with other material sheet”; [0076] “efficient formation of high bond-strength” and “ultra-short pulsed lasers can be focused at either surface or interior points in an exemplary glass substrate”; [0104] “The integrity of the hermetic seal and its respective strength can be maintained by slow cooling (self-annealing) of the hot base glass color center (relaxation) regions and the thinness of the UVA or LMG or NIR thin film region (typically 1/2-1 .mu.m) thereby nullifying any impact of CTE mismatching between the two respective substrates (glass or otherwise)”).
In view of the above either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Kober reasonably teaches that the sensor element and the substrate are mechanically firmly and hermetically connected to one another at the connection interface, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the hermeticity and mechanical firmness of Kober’s picosecond laser welding—as factually supported by Dabich’s ultra-short pulsed laser welding for hermeticity and mechanical integrity—for the expected purpose of operability and/or durability and thus improving Kober’s manufactured product.
Regarding independent claim 31,
Kober teaches a method for manufacturing a pressure sensor arrangement (fig. 5, pressure sensor 21) (Title “Method For Producing A Pressure Measuring Device”; Abstract “method for producing a pressure measuring device for measuring a pressure, esp. An absolute pressure, a relative pressure or a differential pressure, with a carrier (3, 23, 41, 47) made of glass, esp. Borosilicate glass, and a pressure sensor (21, 49), which comprises a sensor element (1, 25, 37, 51) of silicon or a silicon-containing material connected via a joint with the carrier (3, 23, 41, 47), in which carrier (3, 23, 41, 47) and sensor element (1, 25, 37, 51) are arranged on each other and the joining between the carrier (3, 23, 41, 47) and the sensor element (1, 25, 37, 51) is generated, which is characterized in that the joint is produced by a spatially delimited region (9) of a surface layer (11) of the substrate (3, 23, 41, 47) facing the sensor element (1) being heated to above a glass transition temperature of the substrate (3, 23, 41, 47). 3, 23, 41, 47) is heated, and on the heating is followed by a cooling, in which the solidifying glass forms the join between the sensor element (1, 25, 37, 51) and the support (3), the join having a joining surface corresponding to a base of the previously heated region (9). equivalent”; see also background including paragraph before middle of page 2 “pressure sensors can be exposed directly to a medium under the pressure to be measured”; second paragraph of page 8 “The pressure sensor shown here as an exemplary embodiment 21 includes an electromechanical transducer mounted on or in the measuring diaphragm 27 arranged, for example piezoresistive elements connected together to form a resistance measuring bridge 31 includes”), the method comprising:
providing a substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) comprising glass (Abstract “carrier (3, 23, 41, 47) made of glass, esp. Borosilicate glass”; about middle of page 4 “The carrier is made of borosilicate glass”);
providing at least one sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25),
wherein the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) has a top side (top side of sensor element 25) and a bottom side (bottom side of sensor element 25), and
wherein a membrane (fig. 5, diaphragm 27) is formed on the top side (top side of sensor element 25); and
forming a mechanically firm and hermetically sealed connection of the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) and the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) by laser welding (third paragraph from bottom of page 3 “advantageous with regard to a reduction of thermo-mechanical stresses which can be transmitted to the sensor element via the joining surface”; about quarter of the way down page 4 “by means of a laser, in particular a pulse laser, in particular a pico or femtosecond laser”; about halfway on page 6 “To be targeted spatially on the area 9 the surface layer 11 of the carrier 3 limited heating is preferably an in 1 only schematically illustrated laser 13 used. Particularly suitable for this are pulse lasers which generate laser pulses of short duration. The energy supply caused by the laser pulses is spatially even more limited, the shorter the pulse duration. In that regard, for example, picosecond lasers are suitable. An even higher spatial limit can be achieved by the use of femtosecond lasers. Reaching the joining temperature is ensured by the duration and intensity of the irradiation”),
wherein a connection interface (interface between sensor element 25 and carrier 23; see fig. 1, area 9 between sensor element 1 and carrier 3) is formed between the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) and the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) while laser welding.
The Examiner notes with respect to the above teachings being shown in different figures, that while the reference does not expressly show all of the above claimed features clearly in a single depicted embodiment as a single figure, either one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisaged the
combination from the generic teachings thereof and/or specific possible choices of the structural components
thereof, or, in the alternative, it at least would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to nevertheless so combine the above features for the
purpose and combinations as proposed by said reference and as analyzed by the Examiner
including the citations and/or Examiner comments provided above in reference to the claimed features.
Pertinently, the Examiner further notes that "Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness", see Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). More particularly, it is Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kober’s method for producing a pressure measuring device of fig. 1 with the pressure measuring device of fig. 5 for the expected advantages as put forth by Kober, the Examiner emphasizing that fig. 5 shows a pressure measuring device produced by the method (first paragraph of page 8 “5 shows a first embodiment of a pressure measuring device produced by the method according to the invention”), and Kober teaches that the method improves the long-term stability of the measurement results including by reducing impairment of the measurement properties and/or differences in coefficients of thermal expansion and/or different moduli of elasticity, leading to reduction of thermo-mechanical stresses.
Kober does not explicitly state that the sensor element and the substrate are mechanically firmly and hermetically connected to one another at the connection interface.
However:
It is the Examiner’s position that an ordinary artisan would at once understand that for reasonable operability Kober’s sensor element and substrate are reasonably mechanically firm as well as reasonably hermetically connected to one another at the connection (interface between sensor element 25 and carrier 23, connected via manufacturing method using picosecond laser).
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize the mechanical firmness and the hermeticity for the expected advantage of preventing loss of structural integrity.
Furthermore, and factually supporting the aforementioned assertion, Dabich teaches laser welding glass for hermeticity and mechanical firmness (Title “LASER WELDING TRANSPARENT GLASS SHEETS USING LOW MELTING GLASS OR THIN ABSORBING FILMS”; Abstract; [0002] “Many modern devices require hermetic environments to operate”; [0004] “While conventional laser welding of glass substrates can employ ultra-high laser power devices, this operation at near laser ablation often times damages the glass substrates and achieves a poor quality hermetic seal”; [0005] “laser welding or sealing process of a glass sheet with other material sheet”; [0076] “efficient formation of high bond-strength” and “ultra-short pulsed lasers can be focused at either surface or interior points in an exemplary glass substrate”; [0104] “The integrity of the hermetic seal and its respective strength can be maintained by slow cooling (self-annealing) of the hot base glass color center (relaxation) regions and the thinness of the UVA or LMG or NIR thin film region (typically 1/2-1 .mu.m) thereby nullifying any impact of CTE mismatching between the two respective substrates (glass or otherwise)”).
In view of the above either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Kober reasonably teaches that the sensor element and the substrate are mechanically firmly and hermetically connected to one another at the connection interface, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the hermeticity and mechanical firmness of Kober’s picosecond laser welding—as factually supported by Dabich’s ultra-short pulsed laser welding for hermeticity and mechanical integrity—for the expected purpose of operability and/or durability and thus improving Kober’s manufactured product.
Regarding claim 21, which depends on claim 20,
Kober teaches wherein the pressure sensor arrangement (fig. 5, pressure sensor 21) is free of a connecting means for connecting the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) and the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23). The Examiner emphasizes that picosecond lasered region is the only required joining of the sensor element 25 and the carrier 23, and furthermore, the Examiner additionally considers that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further omit additional connecting means thereby reducing on costs and/or advantageously reducing thermo-mechanical stresses which could otherwise be transmitted to the sensor element via said connecting means.
Regarding claim 22, which depends on claim 20,
Kober reasonably teaches wherein the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) has a coefficient of thermal expansion that differs from a coefficient of thermal expansion of the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) by less than 1 ppm/K (towards top of page 6 “The support is preferably made of a glass having a thermal expansion coefficient as close as possible to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the sensor element, e.g. made of borosilicate glass”; the Examiner notes that as close as possible is at once envisaged as inclusive of less than 1ppm/K; additional obviousness analysis provided).
Kober does not explicitly state less than 1 ppm/K.
However:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05(I), In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the present case, a thermal expansion coefficient as close as possible (i.e., difference is as close to possible to ~0 ppm/K) reasonably overlaps with a difference less than 1 ppm/K.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize to less than 1 ppm/K as being reasonably as close to possible as being the same coefficient of thermal expansion.
Additionally, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to choose materials that are as close to the same thermal coefficient as possible.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that a difference as close to 0 ppm/K reasonably teaches/suggests less than 1 ppm/K, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the respective coefficients of the Kober’s sensor element and carrier to be so less than 1ppm/K different thereby providing the expected result of making the thermal expansion coefficients as close as possible thereby reducing impairment of the measurement properties and/or leading to reduction of thermo-mechanical stresses.
Regarding claim 24, which depends on claim 20,
Kober teaches wherein the at least one detection element (transducer, exemplary as measuring bridge 31) is arranged at the membrane (fig. 5, diaphragm 27) (second paragraph of page 8 “electromechanical transducer mounted on or in the measuring diaphragm 27 arranged, for example piezoresistive elements connected together to form a resistance measuring bridge 31 includes”).
Regarding claim 25, which depends on claim 20,
Kober reasonably teaches/suggests wherein the medium is a liquid or a gas (at once so envisaged that the medium is a liquid or a gas; additional obviousness analysis, substantially as already put forth for the independent claim follows).
The Examiner (re)acknowledges that Kober does not explicitly state in the embodiment of fig. 5 that the pressure sensor is for a fluid medium of liquid or gas.
However:
It is the Examiner’s position that an ordinary artisan would at once understand that Kober’s fig. 5 is intended for measuring mediums, and more specifically fluid mediums, based on: the features and arrangements of fig. 5 as being of the general arrangement commonly utilized therefor (e.g., bore leading to membrane for measuring the pressure); the classifications (e.g., G01L classifications already recognized as pertaining to measuring fluid pressure); and/or the discussion in the background of the prior art which is likewise pertaining to the measuring (fluidic) mediums.
Furthermore, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is conventional to measure mediums such as gas and/or liquid fluid mediums with membrane type pressure sensors.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Kober reasonably teaches use with of the pressure to sensor by exposing to a (fluid) medium, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conventional application of measuring fluid mediums including gas &/or liquid, and the associated known configurations therewith, thereby increasing the utility/versatility and/or marketability.
Regarding claim 26, which depends on claim 20,
Kober teaches wherein a laser energy is coupled in to a bottom side (bottom side of sensor element 25) of the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) to create the connection interface (interface between sensor element 25 and carrier 23; see fig. 1, area 9 between sensor element 1 and carrier 3) (second paragraph from bottom of page 6 “The irradiation of the surface layer 11 is preferably done by the carrier 3 therethrough. This will be a laser 13 used, which works in a wavelength range in which the carrier 3 sufficiently transparent, so that the laser radiation through the carrier 3 through into the area to be heated 9 can be introduced. In conjunction with carriers 3 made of borosilicate glass, for example, a CO .sub.2 laser can be used for this purpose”) and/or
wherein laser welding is performed with ultrashort laser pulses (about quarter of the way down page 4 “by means of a laser, in particular a pulse laser, in particular a pico or femtosecond laser”; about halfway on page 6 “To be targeted spatially on the area 9 the surface layer 11 of the carrier 3 limited heating is preferably an in 1 only schematically illustrated laser 13 used. Particularly suitable for this are pulse lasers which generate laser pulses of short duration. The energy supply caused by the laser pulses is spatially even more limited, the shorter the pulse duration. In that regard, for example, picosecond lasers are suitable. An even higher spatial limit can be achieved by the use of femtosecond lasers. Reaching the joining temperature is ensured by the duration and intensity of the irradiation”).
Regarding claim 32, which depends on claim 31,
Kober teaches wherein a laser energy for connecting the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) and the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) is coupled in to a side of the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) opposite the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) (second paragraph from bottom of page 6 “The irradiation of the surface layer 11 is preferably done by the carrier 3 therethrough. This will be a laser 13 used, which works in a wavelength range in which the carrier 3 sufficiently transparent, so that the laser radiation through the carrier 3 through into the area to be heated 9 can be introduced. In conjunction with carriers 3 made of borosilicate glass, for example, a CO .sub.2 laser can be used for this purpose”).
Regarding claim 33, which depends on claim 31,
Kober teaches wherein laser welding is carried out with ultrashort pulses (about quarter of the way down page 4 “by means of a laser, in particular a pulse laser, in particular a pico or femtosecond laser”; about halfway on page 6 “To be targeted spatially on the area 9 the surface layer 11 of the carrier 3 limited heating is preferably an in 1 only schematically illustrated laser 13 used. Particularly suitable for this are pulse lasers which generate laser pulses of short duration. The energy supply caused by the laser pulses is spatially even more limited, the shorter the pulse duration. In that regard, for example, picosecond lasers are suitable. An even higher spatial limit can be achieved by the use of femtosecond lasers. Reaching the joining temperature is ensured by the duration and intensity of the irradiation”).
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.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Kober in view of newly cited Dabich and in further view of newly cited Brockmeier et al (US 20220033249 A1; hereafter “Brockmeier”).
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 20,
Kober reasonably teaches wherein the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) comprises a silicon chip (Abstract “sensor element (1, 25, 37, 51) of silicon or a silicon-containing material”; second paragraph of page 8 “The pressure sensor shown here as an exemplary embodiment 21 includes an electromechanical transducer mounted on or in the measuring diaphragm 27 arranged, for example piezoresistive elements connected together to form a resistance measuring bridge 31 includes”; at once so envisaged that the silicon sensor element is a silicon chip; additional obviousness analysis provided).
Kober does not explicitly state that the silicon electromechanical transducing pressure sensor element is a silicon chip.
However:
It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisaged that said silicon electromechanical transducing pressure sensor element is a silicon chip (see citations above).
The Examiner takes Official Notice that pressure sensors are often constructed as a silicon chip.
As factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Brockmeier teaches a silicon chip (Title “MEMS SENSOR WITH PARTICLE FILTER AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING IT”; Abstract; [0002] “Pressure sensors are often constructed on the basis of microelectromechanical system (MEMS) semiconductor chips in which the actual sensor consists of a thin silicon membrane. This type of pressure sensors usually requires an open access to the sensitive membrane, which detects pressure differences and converts them into electrical signals”).
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Kober reasonably teaches wherein the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) comprises a silicon chip (Abstract “sensor element (1, 25, 37, 51) of silicon or a silicon-containing material”; second paragraph of page 8), or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a conventional chip configuration—as factually supported by Brockmeier for the expected advantage(s) of reliable manufacturing and low-cost batch processing of the silicon sensor element by way of being a chip.
Claim(s) 27-30 and 34-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Kober in view of newly cited Dabich and in further view of Applicant cited Weiblen* et al (JP 2005227282 A; hereafter “Weiblen”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 27 and claim 28 and claim 29, where claim 27 depends on claim 20 and where claim 28 depends on claim 27 and where claim 29 depends on claim 27,
Kober teaches the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) and the carrier substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23).
Kober does not teach a connection base including: (claim 27) further comprising a connection base disposed between the sensor element and the substrate, wherein the connection base comprises glass; (claim 28) wherein the connection base is attached to the sensor element, and wherein the connection interface is arranged between the connection base and the substrate; and (claim 29) wherein the connection base is connected to the sensor element by an anodic bonding.
Weiblen teaches pressure sensor arrangement (fig. 1, micro-mechanic sensor) (Title “MANUFACTURING METHOD OF MICRO-MECHANIC SENSOR FOR DETECTING VALUE SHOWING PRESSURE AND MICRO-MECHANIC SENSOR FOR DETECTING VALUE SHOWING PRESSURE”) comprising: a sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) having a top side (top side of sensor chip 1) and a bottom side (bottom side of sensor chip 1), wherein the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) comprises a membrane (fig. 1, diaphragm 26) configured to be exposed to a medium (medium not shown; see medium pressure P) and at least one detection element (fig. 1, piezoresistor 6 with semiconductor circuit 7) configured to measure a pressure of the medium (medium not shown; see medium pressure P) (third paragraph of page 4 “By using the sensor thus manufactured, the medium pressure can be detected”); a substrate (fig. 1, base 4) serving as a carrier of the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1); and a connection interface (fig. 1, solder 3), arranged between the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) and the substrate (fig. 1, base 4), wherein the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) and the substrate (fig. 1, base 4) are mechanically firmly and hermetically connected (reasonably so operative) to one another at the connection interface (fig. 1, solder 3),wherein the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) comprises a silicon chip (second to last paragraph of page 4 “medium under pressure can exert a force on the silicon chip 1”), wherein the at least one detection element (fig. 1, piezoresistor 6 with semiconductor circuit 7) is arranged at the membrane (fig. 1, diaphragm 26), wherein the medium (medium not shown; see medium pressure P) is a liquid or a gas (at once so envisaged), (claim 27) further comprising a connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) disposed between the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) and the substrate (fig. 1, base 4), wherein the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) comprises glass, (claim 28) wherein the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) is attached to the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1), and wherein the connection interface (fig. 1, solder 3) is arranged between the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) and the substrate (fig. 1, base 4), and (claim 29) wherein the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) is connected to the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) by an anodic bonding (second paragraph of page 4 “sensor chip 1 is anodically bonded to a glass intermediate layer or glass base 2 made of sodium-containing glass”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Weiblen’s interposed glass connection base for a pressure sensor with Kober’s pressure sensor, thereby providing additional insulation between the sensor and the substrate carrier inclusive of further isolating the sensing element from mechanical and/or thermal stresses of the substrate carrier, housing, and/or packaging, and thus reducing distortions including of the membrane which could lead to false pressure readings, measurements errors, and/or premature failure.
Regarding claim 30, which depends on claim 27,
Kober reasonably teaches/suggests wherein the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) has a coefficient of thermal expansion that differs from a coefficient of thermal expansion of the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) by less than 1 ppm/K (towards top of page 6 “The support is preferably made of a glass having a thermal expansion coefficient as close as possible to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the sensor element, e.g. made of borosilicate glass”; the Examiner notes that as close as possible is at once envisaged as inclusive of less than 1ppm/K; additional obviousness analysis provided, similar to the analysis of claim 22).
Kober still does not teach a connection base wherein the substrate has a coefficient of thermal expansion that differs from a coefficient of thermal expansion of the connection base by less than 1 ppm/K.
Weiblen teaches the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2), wherein the sensor element (fig. 1, silicon chip 1) has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is similar to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) (second to last paragraph of page 4 “In order to reduce another negative effect, a glass that exhibits a temperature coefficient adapted to silicon is usually used for the glass base 2. This results in a smaller long time drift, smaller temperature relevance or temperature hysteresis in the sensor output signal”). The Examiner additionally notes as generically relevant to maintaining similar temperature coefficients between components, that Weiblen further teaches: about middle of page 3 “it is conceivable to make the insert from glass, metal, ceramic, plastic or a material having the same temperature coefficient as the second component”; and second paragraph of page 7 “Glass in particular has an advantageous effect. This is because the glass insert can select a material that can ideally have the same thermal expansion coefficient as the perforated glass plate 120”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Weiblen’s interposed glass connection base for a pressure sensor with Kober’s pressure sensor for the same combination and motivation provided for claim 27.
With further regards to the less than 1 ppm/K, including wherein the substrate has a coefficient of thermal expansion that differs from a coefficient of thermal expansion of the connection base by less than 1 ppm/K:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05(I), In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the present case, a thermal expansion coefficient as close as possible between the glass substrate carrier and the sensor element (i.e., Kober’s difference is as close to possible to ~0 ppm/K) reasonably overlaps with a difference less than 1 ppm/K. Likewise Weiblen’s teaching of the sensor element being of a similar temperature coefficient to that of the glass connection base reasonably overlaps with a difference of less than 1 ppm/K. Finally, by extension, of the associations, Kober’s glass substrate and Weiblen’s glass connection base would similarly reasonably overlap with the claimed less than 1 ppm/K.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize to less than 1 ppm/K as being reasonably as close to possible as being the same coefficient of thermal expansion.
Additionally, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to choose materials that are as close to the same thermal coefficient as possible (in this, case merely choosing the same or substantially similar glass for the glass substrate and the glass connection base).
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the combination reasonably suggests the claimed less than 1 ppm/K, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the respective coefficients of the aforementioned elements of Kober and Weiblen to be so less than 1ppm/K different thereby providing the expected result of making the thermal expansion coefficients as close as possible and thereby reducing impairment of the measurement properties and/or leading to reduction of thermo-mechanical stresses, and/or (exemplary of being effectively 0 ppm/K difference) merely for the convenience of using the same glass material.
Therefore, Kober as modified by Weiblen reasonably suggests wherein the glass substrate (Kober, fig. 5, carrier 23) has a coefficient of thermal expansion that differs from a coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass connection base (Weiblen, fig. 1, glass base 2) by less than 1 ppm/K.
Regarding claim 34 and claim 35 and claim 36 and claim 37, where claim 34 depends on claim 31 and where claim 35 depends on claim 34 and where claim 36 depends on claim 34,
Kober teaches the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) and the carrier substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23), wherein the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) is connected to the carrier substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) by laser welding with ultrashort laser pulses (about quarter of the way down page 4 “by means of a laser, in particular a pulse laser, in particular a pico or femtosecond laser”; about halfway on page 6 “To be targeted spatially on the area 9 the surface layer 11 of the carrier 3 limited heating is preferably an in 1 only schematically illustrated laser 13 used. Particularly suitable for this are pulse lasers which generate laser pulses of short duration. The energy supply caused by the laser pulses is spatially even more limited, the shorter the pulse duration. In that regard, for example, picosecond lasers are suitable. An even higher spatial limit can be achieved by the use of femtosecond lasers. Reaching the joining temperature is ensured by the duration and intensity of the irradiation”), wherein a laser energy for connecting the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) and the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) is coupled in to a side of the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) opposite the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) (second paragraph from bottom of page 6 “The irradiation of the surface layer 11 is preferably done by the carrier 3 therethrough. This will be a laser 13 used, which works in a wavelength range in which the carrier 3 sufficiently transparent, so that the laser radiation through the carrier 3 through into the area to be heated 9 can be introduced. In conjunction with carriers 3 made of borosilicate glass, for example, a CO .sub.2 laser can be used for this purpose”).
Kober does not teach a connection base including: (claim 34) further comprising providing a connection base prior to forming the mechanically firm and hermetically sealed connection, wherein the connection base comprises glass, and wherein the connection base is connected to the bottom side of the sensor element to form a sensor system; (claim 35) wherein the connection base is connected to the sensor element by anodic bonding, (claim 36) wherein the sensor system (which includes the connection base) is connected to the substrate by laser welding with ultrashort laser pulses, (claim 37) wherein a laser energy for connecting the substrate and the sensor system (which includes the connection base) is coupled in to a side of the substrate opposite the sensor system (which includes the connection base).
Weiblen teaches a method for manufacturing a pressure sensor arrangement (fig. 1, micro-mechanic sensor) (Title “MANUFACTURING METHOD OF MICRO-MECHANIC SENSOR FOR DETECTING VALUE SHOWING PRESSURE AND MICRO-MECHANIC SENSOR FOR DETECTING VALUE SHOWING PRESSURE”; Abstract; third paragraph of page 4 “By using the sensor thus manufactured, the medium pressure can be detected”), the method comprising:
providing a substrate (fig. 1, base 4);
providing at least one sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1),
wherein the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) has a top side (top side of sensor chip 1) and a bottom side (bottom side of sensor chip 1), and
wherein a membrane (fig. 1, diaphragm 26) is formed on the top side (top side of sensor chip 1); and
forming a mechanically firm and hermetically sealed connection (reasonably so operative) of the substrate (fig. 1, base 4) and the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) (second to last paragraph of page 4 “medium under pressure can exert a force on the silicon chip 1”),
wherein a connection interface (fig. 1, solder 3) is formed between the substrate (fig. 1, base 4) and the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1), further comprising providing a connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) prior to forming the mechanically firm and hermetically sealed connection (second paragraph of page 4 “the sensor chip 1 is anodically bonded to a glass intermediate layer or glass base 2 made of sodium-containing glass. The back surface of the glass base 2 is metalized and fixed to the metal base 4 (for example, TO8 base) with solder 3”. The Examiner notes that the order of the operations as stated reasonably suggests the anodical bonding precedes the late fixing to the substrate/base; additional obviousness analysis provided), wherein the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) comprises glass, and wherein the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) is connected to the bottom side (bottom side of sensor chip 1) of the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) to form a sensor system (sensor system comprising sensor chip 1 and glass base 2), wherein the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) is connected to the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) by anodic bonding (second paragraph of page 4 “sensor chip 1 is anodically bonded to a glass intermediate layer or glass base 2 made of sodium-containing glass”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Weiblen’s interposed glass connection base for a pressure sensor with Kober’s pressure sensor, thereby providing additional insulation between the sensor and the substrate carrier inclusive of further isolating the sensing element from mechanical and/or thermal stresses of the substrate carrier, housing, and/or packaging, and thus reducing distortions including of the membrane which could lead to false pressure readings, measurements errors, and/or premature failure.
With further regards to claim 34 limitation pertaining to providing the connection base bonding to the sensor element to form the sensor system prior to the laser welding of the sensor system to the substrate, as noted above, Weiblen reasonably teaches anodic bonding to form the sensor system before the operation of attaching the sensor system to a substrate/base (second paragraph of page 4 “the sensor chip 1 is anodically bonded to a glass intermediate layer or glass base 2 made of sodium-containing glass. The back surface of the glass base 2 is metalized and fixed to the metal base 4 (for example, TO8 base) with solder 3”. The Examiner notes that the order of the operations as stated reasonably suggests the anodical bonding precedes the late fixing to the substrate/base; additional obviousness analysis provided). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that it has been held that:
a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(A), In re Einstein, 46 F.2d 373, 374 (CCPA 1931), and In reGazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E).The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “ [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” It is the Examiner’s position that anodically bonding a glass connection base to the sensor element prior to attaching the sensor system formed thereof to a carrier merely requires common sense, and in the present case, only ordinary skill is required to order the anodic bonding connection prior to the welding connection. The Examiner further emphasizes that the glass connection base is analogous to being an extension of the sensor element, and in the combination the sensor system of Weiblen (consisting of a silicon chip pressure sensor element and a glass connection base) is like a sensor element for Kober to then be laser welded to Kober’s carrier substrate. Finally, the Examiner notes the convenience of the sensor system being premanufactured together prior to assembly with different substrates, noting the commercial advantage of being able to sell, distribute, and/or use a preassembled sensor system in various manufactured variations with different substrate designs, and furthermore for allowing for various pedestal lengths in accordance with said manufactured variations.
Therefore the combination reasonably suggests further comprising providing a connection base (Weiblen: fig. 1, glass base 2) (Weiblen second paragraph of page 4 “the sensor chip 1 is anodically bonded to a glass intermediate layer or glass base 2 made of sodium-containing glass) prior to forming the mechanically firm and hermetically sealed connection (Kober, picosecond pulsed laser welding to carrier substrate 23), wherein the connection base (Weiblen: fig. 1, glass base 2) comprises glass, and wherein the connection base (Weiblen: fig. 1, glass base 2) is connected to the bottom side (Kober: bottom side of sensor element 25. Weiblen: bottom side of sensor chip 1) of the sensor element (Kober: sensor element 25. Weiblen: fig. 1, sensor chip 1) to form a sensor system (Kober sensor element 25 with Weiblen glass base 2).
Regarding claim 38, which depends on claim 31,
Kober reasonably teaches wherein the substrate (fig. 5, carrier 23) has a coefficient of thermal expansion that differs from a coefficient of thermal expansion of the sensor element (fig. 5, sensor element 25) by less than 1 ppm/K (towards top of page 6 “The support is preferably made of a glass having a thermal expansion coefficient as close as possible to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the sensor element, e.g. made of borosilicate glass”; the Examiner notes that as close as possible is at once envisaged as inclusive of less than 1ppm/K; additional obviousness analysis provided).
Kober does not explicitly state less than 1 ppm/K.
However:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05(I), In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the present case, a thermal expansion coefficient as close as possible (i.e., difference is as close to possible to ~0 ppm/K) reasonably overlaps with a difference less than 1 ppm/K.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize to less than 1 ppm/K as being reasonably as close to possible as being the same coefficient of thermal expansion.
Additionally, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to choose materials that are as close to the same thermal coefficient as possible.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that a difference as close to 0 ppm/K reasonably teaches/suggests less than 1 ppm/K, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the respective coefficients of the Kober’s sensor element and carrier to be so less than 1ppm/K different thereby providing the expected result of making the thermal expansion coefficients as close as possible thereby reducing impairment of the measurement properties and/or leading to reduction of thermo-mechanical stresses.
Kober still does not teach a connection base wherein the substrate has a coefficient of thermal expansion that differs from a coefficient of thermal expansion of the connection base by less than 1 ppm/K.
Weiblen teaches a method for manufacturing a pressure sensor arrangement (fig. 1, micro-mechanic sensor) (Title “MANUFACTURING METHOD OF MICRO-MECHANIC SENSOR FOR DETECTING VALUE SHOWING PRESSURE AND MICRO-MECHANIC SENSOR FOR DETECTING VALUE SHOWING PRESSURE”; Abstract; third paragraph of page 4 “By using the sensor thus manufactured, the medium pressure can be detected”), the method comprising:
providing a substrate (fig. 1, base 4);
providing at least one sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1),
wherein the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) has a top side (top side of sensor chip 1) and a bottom side (bottom side of sensor chip 1), and
wherein a membrane (fig. 1, diaphragm 26) is formed on the top side (top side of sensor chip 1); and
forming a mechanically firm and hermetically sealed connection (reasonably so operative) of the substrate (fig. 1, base 4) and the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) (second to last paragraph of page 4 “medium under pressure can exert a force on the silicon chip 1”),
wherein a connection interface (fig. 1, solder 3) is formed between the substrate (fig. 1, base 4) and the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1), further comprising providing a connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) prior to forming the mechanically firm and hermetically sealed connection (second paragraph of page 4 “the sensor chip 1 is anodically bonded to a glass intermediate layer or glass base 2 made of sodium-containing glass. The back surface of the glass base 2 is metalized and fixed to the metal base 4 (for example, TO8 base) with solder 3”. The Examiner notes that the order of the operations as stated reasonably suggests the anodical bonding precedes the late fixing to the substrate/base; additional obviousness analysis provided), wherein the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) comprises glass, and wherein the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) is connected to the bottom side (bottom side of sensor chip 1) of the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) to form a sensor system (sensor system comprising sensor chip 1 and glass base 2), wherein the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) is connected to the sensor element (fig. 1, sensor chip 1) by anodic bonding (second paragraph of page 4 “sensor chip 1 is anodically bonded to a glass intermediate layer or glass base 2 made of sodium-containing glass”), wherein the sensor element (fig. 1, silicon chip 1) has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is similar to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the connection base (fig. 1, glass base 2) (second to last paragraph of page 4 “In order to reduce another negative effect, a glass that exhibits a temperature coefficient adapted to silicon is usually used for the glass base 2. This results in a smaller long time drift, smaller temperature relevance or temperature hysteresis in the sensor output signal”). The Examiner additionally notes as generically relevant to maintaining similar temperature coefficients between components, that Weiblen further teaches: about middle of page 3 “it is conceivable to make the insert from glass, metal, ceramic, plastic or a material having the same temperature coefficient as the second component”; and second paragraph of page 7 “Glass in particular has an advantageous effect. This is because the glass insert can select a material that can ideally have the same thermal expansion coefficient as the perforated glass plate 120”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Weiblen’s interposed glass connection base for a pressure sensor with Kober’s pressure sensor, thereby providing additional insulation between the sensor and the substrate carrier inclusive of further isolating the sensing element from mechanical and/or thermal stresses of the substrate carrier, housing, and/or packaging, and thus reducing distortions including of the membrane which could lead to false pressure readings, measurements errors, and/or premature failure.
With further regards to the less than 1 ppm/K, including wherein the substrate has a coefficient of thermal expansion that differs from a coefficient of thermal expansion of the connection base by less than 1 ppm/K:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05(I), In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the present case, a thermal expansion coefficient as close as possible between the glass substrate carrier and the sensor element (i.e., Kober’s difference is as close to possible to ~0 ppm/K) reasonably overlaps with a difference less than 1 ppm/K. Likewise Weiblen’s teaching of the sensor element being of a similar temperature coefficient to that of the glass connection base reasonably overlaps with a difference of less than 1 ppm/K. Finally, by extension, of the associations, Kober’s glass substrate and Weiblen’s glass connection base would similarly reasonably overlap with the claimed less than 1 ppm/K.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize to less than 1 ppm/K as being reasonably as close to possible as being the same coefficient of thermal expansion.
Additionally, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to choose materials that are as close to the same thermal coefficient as possible (in this, case merely choosing the same or substantially similar glass for the glass substrate and the glass connection base).
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the combination reasonably suggests the claimed less than 1 ppm/K, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the respective coefficients of the aforementioned elements of Kober and Weiblen to be so less than 1ppm/K different thereby providing the expected result of making the thermal expansion coefficients as close as possible and thereby reducing impairment of the measurement properties and/or leading to reduction of thermo-mechanical stresses, and/or (exemplary of being effectively 0 ppm/K difference) merely for the convenience of using the same glass material.
Therefore, Kober as modified by Weiblen reasonably suggests wherein the glass substrate (Kober, fig. 5, carrier 23) has a coefficient of thermal expansion that differs from a coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass connection base (Weiblen, fig. 1, glass base 2) by less than 1 ppm/K.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 16SEP2026
Prosecution Insights