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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5,7-15 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6,8 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.
Claims 6 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 6, what does "MEMS" dimensionally limit any structure to, if any? Consider that different publications/patents provide different dimensional ranges for (different) structural elements in "MEMS" for their particular publications/patents, but no such description (i.e., range and identified structural component) is provided in the instant application. What structural and dimensional limitation(s) would one of ordinary skill attach to any particular claimed structure to account for "MEMS"? The term "MEMS" resides in claim 6, but the meaning of such is undefined. Consider, that different patents/publications provide different ranges for the same term micromechanical/MEMS. (For examples, note that Pat Pub 2009/0108193 relates (Para 43) micromechanical/MEMS structures to a range of 0.1 um - Imm, Pat Pub 2006/0261032 relates (Para 40) micromechanical/MEMS structures in the range of 0.01 microns to a few millimeters", Pat 6,679,055 relates (lines 39-43, col. 1) micromechanical/MEMS to 0.1 micron to 1000 microns" and Pat Pub 2014/0264900 GMBh relates (Para 3) micromechanical/MEMS to components of 1 - 100 micrometers (0.001 to 0.1 mm), all collectively providing for different distinct ranges. None of those ranges corresponds to Applicant's "MEMS", and there is so suggestion providing such. How is the public to recognize what range Applicant's claimed limitation "MEMS" might relate to? Different publications provide those different ranges. Understand, the difficulty here is in the lack of any dimensional meaning (range?) of the claimed term "MEMS” in Applicant's specification, or even the lack of relating such range to a single particular structural component. What is Applicant's range? (Is there support for such?? Does Applicant have a dimension for 1 component? The prior art has different ranges for the same term, yet it appears the instant application provides none. The limitation "MEMS" is in the claim, and it MUST means something.
As to claim 8, the “ , “ (both occurrences) is troubling, as it’s not clear if Applicant is adding a period - - . - - or a comma - - , - - . (Please replace with a new claim, and delete claim 8)
Prior Art not Applied
Kern et al 20150194192 teaches (Figure 2A) a circuit arrangement which has:
a first supply terminal VDD and a second supply terminal VSS, between which a supply voltage is applied during operation;
a sensor circuit (“Sensing Circuit”) having at least one resistive sensor element (P1,N1), wherein the sensor circuit has a first circuit node S2/S3 and a second circuit node VSS for applying a sensor voltage VSS, and wherein the first circuit node is connected to the first supply terminal; and
a sensor supply circuit, which is configured to electrically couple, during a measurement time interval (Figure 2D), a charged capacitor CBL to the the sensor voltage between the first circuit node and the second circuit node
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights