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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Reynard (US 4,439,642 – hereafter “Reynard”).
As per claim 1, Reyanrd discloses at least in figures 2A – 2C an ultrasonic sensor, comprising: a housing, cylindrical in shape (cylindrical housing 32), provided with a supporting part inside (diaphragm support ring 39) and a connecting opening connected to the outside (central opening 34); a first planar electrode placed on the supporting part and positioned opposite to the connecting opening (flat vibratile diaphragm 38 extends across that end of housing opening 34 near flange 36 of housing 32 between diaphragm support ring 39 and said housing 32; see col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4., l. 3); a second planar electrode, positioned opposite to the first planar electrode (backplate 48; see col. 4, l. 23), wherein a surface of the second planar electrode is at least partially affixed to a surface of the first planar electrode backward to the supporting part (leaf spring 50 provides the physical force that maintains backplate 48 in cooperative engagement with diaphragm 38; see col. 4, ll. 26 – 28), and insulated from each other to form a stable planar capacitor (the insulative layer, the electrically conductive surface of said diaphragm constituting a first electrode, and the conductive surface of said backplate constituting a second electrode, form a capacitor; col. 1, ll. 22 – 27); wherein the first planar electrode comprises an insulating film and a first conductive layer arranged on the insulating film (see col. 4, ll. 9 – 14); and the second planar electrode comprises at least a conductive substrate (see col. 4’ ll. 23 – 25); the first conductive layer is insulated from the conductive substrate (see col. 4, ll. 14 – 17).
As per claim 2, Reynard discloses the ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the insulating film is a plastic film, and the thickness of the insulating film is in the range of 1 μm to 50 μm (see col. 4, ll. 5 – 11); the first conductive layer is a metal layer attached to the surface of the plastic film, and the thickness of the first conductive layer is in the range of 1 nm to 20 μm (see col. 4, ll. 10 – 15).
As per claim 4, Reynard discloses the ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the first conductive layer is arranged on one side of the insulating film facing the second planar electrode, and an insulating layer is provided between the first conductive layer and the conductive substrate (see col. 4, ll. 14 – 17), with the insulating film isolating the first conductive layer from the external environment (see col. 5, ll.35 – 43).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynard in view of Young (US 3,787,642 A – hereafter “Young”).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “The ultrasonic sensor according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the second planar electrode facing the first planar electrode is provided with a silkscreen layer or dents for forming a textured structure.”
Reynard fails to explicitly teach the surface of the second planar electrode facing the first planar electrode is provided with a silkscreen layer or recesses for forming a textured structure.
Young teaches an electrostatic transducer structure, wherein the topmost surface of the backplate facing and contacting the diaphragm is provided with ridges and points forming a textured structure, with the ridges and points supporting the diaphragm element (see col. 4, l. 67 – col. 5, l. 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Reynard’s second planar electrode in view of Young to provide a textured surface facing the first planar electrode, in order to implement Reynard’s generically disclosed backplate surface using a known texturing arrangement taught as suitable for supporting and interfacing with an opposing electrode element in a capacitive transducer, yielding predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 – 7 and 9 – 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights