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 pot main body of claims 7-9 and the buffer of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) 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.
Formal Matters
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 7-9, 12, and 14 are 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.
As to claim 7: The claim recites in line 2 “a pot main body” and Applicant’s as-filed specification page 2, ¶ 17 discloses “a pot main body” in which the communication hole is formed and a flange is formed on the upper end of said pot main body, but there is no further elucidating information that imparts any specific structural or functional limitations detailing what constitutes such a pot main body and accordingly it appears there is a lack of a description detailing the components that make up such a pot main body.
As to claims 8, 9, and 14: Each of said claims depends ultimately from claim 7 and accordingly each inherits the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) issues of claim 7 for the reasons outlined previously above.
The examiner recommends either explaining what components are included in such a pot main body as claimed in claim 7, preferably by providing examples from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claim(s) to obviate the above noted issue.
As to claim 12: The claim recites in line 1 “the buffer” and is only disclosed in Applicant’s as-filed specification once in page 3, ¶ 22. Similar to claim 7 above, there is a lack of further elucidating information regarding any specific structural or functional limitations detailing what constitutes such a buffer and accordingly it appears there is a lack of a description detailing the components that make up such a buffer.
The examiner recommends either explaining what components are included in such a pot main body as claimed in claim 12, preferably by providing examples from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claim(s) to obviate the above noted issue.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 7: The claim recites “a pot main” but it is unclear from both the claims and Applicant’s as-filed specification page 2, ¶ 17 (which notes only that such a pot main body is associated with the sensing port, communication hole, and flange) what elements (i.e. structures and/or functions) constitute such a pot main body because there is no further elucidating description as noted previously above regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claim 7 nor is the pot main body depicted in the drawings. Because there is no further information regarding what elements constitute such a pot main body, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained at this time.
As to claims 8, 9, and 14: Each of said claims depends ultimately from claim 7 and accordingly each inherits the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues of claim 7 described above due to their respective dependencies upon claim 7.
As to claim 12: The claim recites “the buffer” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or in parent claims 1 and/or 10. Accordingly, it is unclear from Applicant’s as-filed specification page 3, ¶ 22 (which, as noted previously above, only recites “the buffer” once) what elements (i.e. structures and/or functions) constitute such a buffer because there is no further elucidating description as noted previously above regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claim 12 nor is the buffer depicted in the drawings. Because there is no further information regarding what elements constitute such a buffer, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained at this time.
Because the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained at this time for the reasons noted previously above, a proper and complete prior art search for the claimed subject matter of claims 7-9, 12, and 14 could not be completed at this time. The examiner recommends responding to this action by explaining in remarks how Applicant believes the scope of the claims to be definite, preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claim(s) to obviate the above noted issues. Should Applicant’s reply overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of each of claims 7-9, 12, and 14, said rejections will be withdrawn and a proper and complete prior art search for the claimed subject matter of each of said claims would be conducted at that time.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. JP H11-094673 A (hereafter Hiroshi), prior art of record as being indicated on the IDS filed 25 October 2024, in view of Gi et al. KR 102015-0048954 A1 (hereafter Gi), prior art of record as being indicated on the IDS filed 25 October 2024.
As to claim 1: Hiroshi teaches a sensor module (1; see fig. 1 and ¶ 16 of the included English translation of Hiroshi relied upon for the purposes of this rejection) comprising:
a pressure sensing part (see ¶ 16) for sensing pressure;
at least one or a plurality of PCB substrates (13; see ¶ 16) for receiving the pressure signal sensed by the pressure sensing part, processing the pressure signal, and then outputting the signal (the pressure sensing chip 12 disclosed in ¶ 16 necessarily converts electrical signals to pressure signals in order to function as a pressure sensor chip similar to that disclosed in ¶ 2); and
a case (not labeled but see the exterior housing in fig. 1) accommodating the at least one of a plurality of PCB substrates (13) and coupled to an upper end of the pressure sensing part (see fig. 1);
wherein the pressure sensing part includes:
a sensing port (111; see fig. 1) in which a communication hole for pressure transmission is formed (see fig. 1 and ¶ 16 which notes that a joint member 11 is formed therein which allows for pressure transmission and is hence considered to comprise a communication hole such as disclosed in ¶ 3); and
a pressure sensing element (see fig. 2 and the components disclosed in ¶ 17, the combination of which are considered to constitute a pressure sensing element) placed on an inner upper side of the sensing port (see figs. 1 and 2 regarding the relative locations of the pressure sensing elements, such as strain gauge 22 and IC 23, and the sensing port 111) and sensing a change in pressure transmitted through the communication hole (see ¶ 16 in view of the details of pressure sensing in the art disclosed previously in ¶ 6);
wherein the pressure sensing element includes:
a diaphragm (121; see figs. 2 and 3 as well as ¶ 17) including a horizontal sensing surface (not labeled but see fig. 2) and a support part (122; see figs. 1 and 2) extending vertically from an edge of the sensing surface (see figs. 1 and 2); and
one or more strain gauges (22; see ¶ 17) placed on the sensing surface to sense a change in pressure transmitted through the communication hole (see ¶ 17 in view of details previously disclosed in ¶ 3 regarding pressure being introduced via cavity 111).
Hiroshi does not explicitly teach:
wherein the outer circumferential surface of the support part is formed with a groove recessed to a predetermined depth.
However, Gi teaches that an outer circumferential surface of a support part may be formed with a groove recessed to a predetermined depth (see ¶ 49 of the included English translation of Gi relied upon for the purpose of this rejection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiroshi’s support part such that the outer circumferential surface of the support part is formed with a groove recessed to a predetermined depth because such a construction is one of several possible designs for connecting a terminal to a circuit board in a pressure sensing device in order to obtain the useful and predictable result of achieving electrical connection between sensing components while also minimizing the physical dimension of the pressure sensing device and also protecting the internal electric components from potential damage, such as suggested in ¶ 45-49 of Gi.
As to claim 2: Hiroshi as modified by Gi teaches the sensor module of claim 1, wherein rounded parts are formed in an upper end and a lower end of the groove, respectively (see Gi fig. 5; the portions of the support part in which terminals are connected as depicted will be rounded at least partially to allow for the connection disclosed in ¶ 46-49).
As to claim 3: Hiroshi as modified by Gi teaches the sensor module of claim 1, wherein the diaphragm further includes:
a shoulder extending in a radial direction from the lower end of the support (122 of Hiroshi) (see fig. 2 of Hiroshi regarding the portions of the support 122 that extend horizontally outward further than the portions closer to the cavity 123); and
a body extending downward from a bottom surface of the shoulder, and wherein inner diameters of the support part, the shoulder, and the body are the same (see fig. 2 of Hiroshi regarding the portion of the support which is vertically in line with the bump 21 but below the shoulder portion; each of the shoulder, support part, and body all have the same inner diameter that terminates against the cavity 123).
As to claim 15: Hiroshi as modified by Gi teaches the sensor module of claim 2, wherein the diaphragm further includes:
a shoulder extending in a radial direction from the lower end of the support (122 of Hiroshi) (see fig. 2 of Hiroshi regarding the portions of the support 122 that extend horizontally outward further than the portions closer to the cavity 123); and
a body extending downward from a bottom surface of the shoulder, and wherein inner diameters of the support part, the shoulder, and the body are the same (see fig. 2 of Hiroshi regarding the portion of the support which is vertically in line with the bump 21 but below the shoulder portion; each of the shoulder, support part, and body all have the same inner diameter that terminates against the cavity 123).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. JP H11-094673 A (hereafter Hiroshi), prior art of record as being indicated on the IDS filed 25 October 2024, in view of Gi et al. KR 102015-0048954 A1 (hereafter Gi), prior art of record as being indicated on the IDS filed 25 October 2024 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toshio et al. JP H10-046239 A (hereafter Toshio), prior art of record as being indicated on the IDS filed 25 October 2024.
As to claim 5: Hiroshi as modified by Gi teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a diaphragm (121 of Hiroshi) and a sensing surface (see fig. 2 of Hiroshi regarding the horizontal surface of the diaphragm 121), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the diaphragm further includes a boss protruding from a lower surface of the sensing surface.
However, Toshio teaches a diaphragm that includes a boss (4; see fig. 1 ¶ 15 of the included English translation of Toshio relied upon for the purpose of this rejection) protruding from a lower surface (see fig. 1 and ¶ 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hiroshi’s diaphragm to furth include a boss protruding from a lower surface of the sensing surface because such a boss is an art recognized means of achieving the predictable and useful result of appropriately transmitting pressure to a strain gauge mounting surface in a pressure sensing device as suggested in Toshio ¶ 15 and accordingly would afford this benefit to Hiroshi’s device.
As to claim 6: Hiroshi as modified by Gi and Toshio teaches the sensor module of claim 5, wherein the boss (4 of Toshio) protrudes from the center of the sensing surface (see fig. 1 of Toshio) and is located directly above the communication hole (see fig. 1 of Toshio in view of fig. 1 of Hiroshi).
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi et al. JP H11-094673 A (hereafter Hiroshi), prior art of record as being indicated on the IDS filed 25 October 2024, in view of Gi et al. KR 102015-0048954 A1 (hereafter Gi), prior art of record as being indicated on the IDS filed 25 October 2024 as applied above, and further in view of Choi et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0353549 A1 (hereafter Choi).
As to claim 10: Hiroshi as modified by Gi teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a pressure sensing part (see ¶ 16 of Hiroshi) and a sensing port (111 of Hiroshi), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the pressure sensing part further includes a snubber inserted at a lower end of the sensing port.
However, Choi teaches a pressure sensing part (1; see fig. 1 and ¶ 18 and 19) that includes a snubber (11; see fig. 2 and ¶ 22) inserted at a lower end of a sensing port (see fig. 2 and ¶ 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hiroshi’s pressure sensing part such that it further includes a snubber inserted at a lower end of the sensing port because such a snubber is an art recognized means of preventing large pressure transients as suggested in ¶ 22 of Choi and accordingly could serve to smooth any incoming pressure transients and signals that could affect the measurements of Hiroshi’s device.
As to claim 11: Hiroshi as modified by Gi and Choi teaches the sensor module of claim 10, wherein a snubber (11 of Choi) coupling groove (not labeled but see fig. 2 of Choi and details in ¶ 23) is recessed from the lower end to the upper end of the sensing port (see fig. 2 of Choi in view of fig. 1 of Hiroshi), and wherein the lower end of the communication hole (see fig. 1 of Hiroshi and ¶ 16 which notes that a joint member 11 is formed therein which allows for pressure transmission and is hence considered to comprise a communication hole such as disclosed in ¶ 3) is connected to the snubber (11 of Choi) coupling groove (see ¶ 23 of Choi and fig. 2).
As to claim 13: Hiroshi as modified by Gi and Choi teaches the sensor module of claim 11, wherein threads are formed on the outer circumferential surface of the snubber (11 of Choi) (see fig. 2 of Choi and ¶ 20 regarding the screw connection utilized with the coupler 101 and snubber 11) and the inner circumferential surface of the snubber coupling groove, respectively (see fig. 2 of Choi and ¶ 20), and thus the snubber (11 of Choi) is screwed into the snubber coupling groove (see fig. 2 of Choi and ¶ 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 4: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the outer diameter of the body is larger than an outer diameter of the support part and (emphasis added) smaller than an outer diameter of the shoulder, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights