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 .
Summary
Claims 1-5 are pending. Claims 1-5 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2: In line 2, change “smaller” to --less--.
Regarding claim 3: In line 5, change “in a range” to --in an area--.
Regarding claim 4: Delete “projected” before “sensor chip.”
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOSOKAWA (JP 6862964) in view of GIOUSOUF (DE 102020206027).
Regarding claim 1: HOSOKAWA discloses: A pressure sensor (FIG. 1) comprising: a housing (1) having therein a space (above 6); a sensor chip (11) including a strain detection unit (11a) and formed of a thin-film semiconductor (para. 33); and a strain transmission material (6) provided inside the housing (FIG. 1), wherein the strain transmission material (6) includes a pressure-receiving surface (top of 6) in contact with the space (FIG. 1), and a bonding surface (bottom of 11) positioned at an opposite side of the strain transmission material from the pressure-receiving surface (FIG. 1) and fixed to an inner surface of the housing (to surface 2a), and the entire sensor chip is embedded inside the strain transmission material (FIG. 1).
HOSOKAWA does not specify that the housing serves as a fluid flow channel.
GIOUSOUF however does teach a pressure sensor (FIG. 1) where the housing (8, 14) comprises a fluid flow channel (bounded by surfaces 18 and 22). Please note that GIOUSOUF also teaches a pressure sensing chip (37) completely enclosed in strain transmission material (45) just as in HOSOKAWA and the present application.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a housing that comprises a fluid channel as taught by GIOUSOUF if measuring small precise quantities (para. 35 of GIOUSOUF) so as not to have dosing measurements compromised by a branched off fluid path for pressure measurement.
Regarding claim 2: HOSOKAWA discloses: the strain transmission material has rigidity smaller than that of the housing (gel-like material in para. 44).
Regarding claim 3: HOSOKAWA discloses: a lead frame (4 in FIG. 1; para. 25) provided in contact with the sensor chip (connected to 11) and electrically connected to an electrode of the sensor chip (para. 25-26), wherein the lead frame includes an opening that opens in a range facing a portion of the sensor chip including the strain detection unit (gap in 4 shown in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4: HOSOKAWA discloses: a cap member (12 in FIG. 1) provided on a surface of the sensor chip (bottom of 11 in FIG. 1) opposite a surface in contact with the lead frame (top surface of 11 is in contact with 4), and a recess (11b) having a shape having a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction and surrounding a periphery of the strain detection unit on a surface in contact with the sensor chip (12 contacts 11 around the periphery of the detection surface 11a as shown in FIG. 1), and when the recess, the opening, and the cap member are projected onto the sensor chip, an outline of the projected recess is positioned more inward than an outline of the projected opening (opening is 4 is larger than the extent of the recess 11b).
The recess where the sensor chip 11 meets the cap 12 is not in the cap 12, but is rather formed in the recess 11 (the recess is 11b), and the outline of the cap is the same as the outline of the sensor chip instead of the cap being smaller.
These differences constitute an obvious change in shape (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B) and an obvious rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C) because in both cases these differences do not affect the functioning of the device. If the recess were formed in the cap 12 instead of the chip 11, the diaphragm would still have the required recess behind it providing freedom of movement and a known reference pressure, and if the cap 12 were slightly smaller than the sensor chip 11, it would still form a recess between the sensor chip and the cap. Therefore unless these differences produce some new and unexpected result, they are merely obvious design choices.
Regarding claim 5: HOSOKAWA discloses: a part of the lead frame (4 in FIG. 1) is embedded in the strain transmission material (FIG. 1 shows the inward part of 4 embedded in the strain transmission material 6.), and another part of the lead frame (far left and far right of 4) protrudes to an outside of the housing (4 protrudes outside of 1 in FIG. 1.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MILLAR (US 6394986) and WADE et al. (US 20180306659) each teach a pressure sensor as part of a fluid conduit embedded in a strain transmission material. LAMPROPULOS et al. (US 5581038) also teaches a sensor chip encapsulated with a strain transmission material that has a cavity and a cap and is part of a housing that is a fluid conduit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights