DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 03 October 2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 17, 21, 23, 26 and 28-29 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 1-16, 18-19 and 31-36 has/have been canceled. Claim(s) 17 and 20-30 is/are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI") of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "contacting element" in claims 17 and 20-30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding disclosed structure(s) is/are a pure gold and/or a gold alloy bump or cusp (e.g., ¶ [0015] of specification as published, US 2021/0378523 A1)
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph:
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 20-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, claim 29 and claims dependent thereon, the limitations "a first base extending from a first end to a second end and comprising a contacting element arranged at the first end; a second base extending from a first end to a second end and comprising a contacting element arranged at the first end" of claim 17 and the comparable limitations of claim 29 lack sufficient support in the application as filed. These limitations at least appear to encompass "two distinct bases" (as argued by Applicant in the most recent remarks, pg. 8). However, the application as filed lacks support for "two distinct bases." Rather, Applicant discloses a single "substrate layer" that may include an opening or perforation, such that said substrate layer does not cover the recess and a medium access to a semiconductor component can be provided (e.g., ¶ [0012] as published). Applicant contends Fig. 1 of the present application illustrates the arrangement as claimed. However, Fig. 1 does not illustrate "two distinct bases." Rather, Applicant discloses Fig. 1 shows a cross-sectional view of the sensor unit (e.g., ¶ [0029]). Accordingly, Figure 1 shows the single "substrate layer" in a cross-section at the position of the opening, such that a portion of said substrate layer is disposed on one side of said opening and another portion of said substrate layer is disposed on the other side of said opening.
The limitation "wherein a first sidewall is configured to couple with the first base at the second end of the first base and a second sidewall is configured to couple with the second base at the second end of the second base such that the carrier and the first base and the second base define a recess" further lacks sufficient support in the specification as filed. As noted above, Applicant fails to disclose a first base and a separate second base. Further, Applicant does not sufficiently disclose that each sidewall is configured to couple with a "second end" of each base (or substrate layer portion). At best, Applicant's Fig. 1 shows that "sidewalls" defining the recess (120) within the carrier/carrier material (110) contact the substrate layer at first and second locations thereof. However, the break lines in the figure make it unclear that the carrier material contacts the substate layer at "second ends" of said layer on either side of the opening, particularly the right side/portion (when looking at the figure) of the substrate layer. Specifically, the apparently illustrated break line(s) of the figure appear to indicate that only a portion of a larger object is being illustrated. There is no clear indication in either the drawings or specification that the "substrate layer," or claimed base(s), is/are only provided at the locations illustrated in Fig. 1, particularly as Applicant discloses the substrate layer/base(s) is/are used to make electrical contact with additional electronic components (e.g., microcontroller) that are not illustrated in Fig. 1 (e.g., ¶ [0035]).
Lastly, the limitation "wherein a space between the first contacting element and the second contacting element defines a width of an opening to the recess" lacks sufficient support in the application as filed. Specifically, Applicant discloses an opening is provided in/defined within the "substrate layer," or base(s) (e.g., ¶ [0010]; ¶ [0012]; ¶ [0016]; etc.). Accordingly, Applicant fails to disclose a space between the first contacting element and the second contacting element defines a width of an opening to the recess as claimed.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim(s) 17, 21-22, 29 and claims dependent thereon is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17 and claims dependent thereon, the limitations "a first base extending from a first end to a second end and comprising a contacting element arranged at the first end; a second base extending from a first end to a second end and comprising a contacting element arranged at the first end; […] a first contacting element arranged on the first base at the first end and configured to electrically connect the semiconductor element to the first base; and a second contacting element arranged on the second base at the first end and configured to electrically connect the semiconductor element to the second base" are indefinite. The relationship between the earlier-recited contacting elements arranged at the first ends of the first and second bases, and the later-recited first and second contacting elements is unclear and/or it is unclear how many elements are required at each first end of the first and second bases. For the purpose of this Office action, claim 17 will be further discussed with the understanding the above-noted limitations refer to the same contacting element (i.e., each base only requires a single contacting element at its first end), for example, within the scope of: "a first base extending from a first end to a second end and comprising a first contacting element arranged at the first end; a second base extending from a first end to a second end and comprising a second contacting element arranged at the first end; […] wherein the first contacting element is configured to electrically connect the semiconductor element to the first base and the second contacting element is configured to electrically connect the semiconductor element to the second base […]."
Regarding claim 21, claim 22 and claims dependent thereon, each occurrence of "the at least one contacting element" in claims 21-22 is indefinite, as it is unclear to which of the prior-recited contacting elements the limitation refers, the first contacting element, the second contacting element, both contacting elements, etc. For the purpose of this Office action, claims 21 and 22 will be further discussed with the understanding that each occurrence of "the at least one contacting element" refers to both/each of the first and second contacting elements.
Regarding claim 23 and claims dependent thereon, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the substrate layer" in the claim.
Regarding claim 28 and claims dependent thereon, the limitation "the first base or the second base is raised from the semiconductor component such that the opening of the recess is positioned above the semiconductor component" is indefinite. Claim 17, on which claim 28 depends, recites the opening is defined by the space between the first and second contacting elements. Accordingly, it is unclear how the first or second base being raised from the semi-conductor component results in (i.e., "such that") the opening being positioned above the semi-conductive component.
Regarding claim 29 and claims dependent thereon, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the first connecting element" in the claim. This is presumed to be a typographical error and will be further discussed with the understanding said limitation is intended to refer to "the first contacting element" previously recited in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 17, 20 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2015/0307344 A1 (previously cited, Ernst); or alternatively, over Ernst in view of US 2014/0342203 A1 (previously cited, Elian).
Regarding claims 17, 20 and 28, Ernst discloses/suggests a sensor unit (e.g., Fig. 1B) for a mechanical circulatory support device (intended use, see MPEP 2111.02(II)), the sensor unit comprising:
a first base extending from a first end to a second end (portion base 103, metal carrier structure 106, or a combination thereof disposed to the left of opening 118) and comprising a first contacting element (left contact medium 116);
a second base extending from a first end to a second end (portion base 103, metal carrier structure 106, or a combination thereof disposed to the right of opening 118) and comprising a second contacting element (right contact medium 116);
a carrier comprising sidewalls (sidewalls 105), wherein a first sidewall is configured to couple with the first base at the second end of the first base and a second sidewall is configured to couple with the second base at the second end of the second base such that the carrier and the first base and the second base define a recess (¶ [0070] sidewalls 105 arranged opposite one another in pairs and connected to the base 103 such that they enclose between them a space, also designated as the interior of the housing 104 or a cavity; etc.), wherein the carrier comprises/is formed of a carrier material including at least one of: a metallic material, a thermoplastic material, a ceramic material, and glass (¶ [0071], ¶ [0073], etc., housing 104 may include or essentially consist of a thermoplastic and/or ceramic), and wherein the first base or the second base is raised from the semiconductor component such that the opening of the recess substrate layer is positioned above (i.e., on a different planar level) the semiconductor component (see Fig. 1B);
a semiconductor component configured to form a sensor (sensor chip 102; ¶ [0028]), wherein the semiconductor component is positioned within the recess (Fig. 1B; ¶ [0025] sensor chip 102 is arranged in the housing);
wherein the first and second contacting elements are configured to electrically connect the semiconductor element to the first and second base, respectively (¶ [0025] contact between the metal carrier structure 106 and the contacts 112 of the chip 102 can be utilized both for a mounting of the sensor chip 102 on the metal carrier structure 106 and for the electrical contact between the contact 112 of the sensor chip 102 and the metal carrier structure 106, for example by virtue of the contacts 112 of the sensor chip 102 being adhesively bonded or soldered on the metal carrier structure 106, for example by a contact medium 116).
Ernst does not disclose the first and second contacting elements are arranged at the first ends of the respective first and second bases, or a space between the first contacting element and the second contacting element defines a width of an opening to the recess. However, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor unit of Ernst with a space between the first contacting element and the second contacting element defines a width of an opening to the recess, such that the first and second contacting elements are arranged at the first ends of the respective first and second bases (e.g., providing a larger "opening 118" between the bases that extends from the first contacting element to the opposed second contacting element, see modified Fig. 1B below), because Applicant has not disclosed that the recess opening being defined by the space between the first and second contacting elements provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Rather, in all disclosures relevant to the opening, Applicant appears to disclose the opening is instead provided in and/or defined by a "substrate layer," which is understood to correspond to the claimed base(s). At best, Applicant discloses said opening, or a "perforation," is provided "above the semiconductor component…in order to ensure a medium access to a sensor" (e.g., ¶ [0010]). Accordingly, as no evidence has been provided to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the opening (118) arrangement disclosed by Ernst (e.g., Fig. 1B) because either configuration ensures a medium access to the sensor.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively/Additionally, Elian discloses/suggests a sensor unit (e.g., Fig. 2) comprising:
a first base extending from a first end to a second end and comprising a first contacting element arranged at the first end (see "first base" of annotated Fig. 2D below, or at least a section thereof);
a second base extending from a first end to a second end and comprising a second contacting element arranged at the first end (see "second base" of annotated Fig. 2D below, or at least a section thereof); and
PNG
media_image2.png
219
907
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a semiconductor component configured to form a sensor (Fig. 2D, semiconductor die 110 comprising a micro-mechanical element 112 for generating a measurement signal indicative of an external pressure applied thereto),
wherein the first and second contacting elements are configured to electrically connect the semiconductor element to the first and second base, respectively (Fig. 2D, ¶ [0035], etc., solder balls 214 establish an electrical connection between the interface of the die 110 and circuit board 120), and wherein a space between the first contacting element and the second contacting element defines a width of an opening to the sensor (Fig. 2D, opening 122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor unit of Ernst with the first and second contacting elements being arranged at the first ends of the respective first and second bases and a space between said first and second contacting elements defining a width of the opening to the recess, or sensor arranged therein, as taught/suggested Elian so that the medium applying pressure to the sensing element of the semiconductor device has sufficient access thereto through the opening 122 (Elian, ¶ [0027] and/or as a simple substitution of one suitable opening size ensuring a medium access to a sensor for another to yield no more than predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 26, Ernst as modified teaches/suggests the limitations of claim 17, but does not disclose a thickness of the first or second base is within a range between 40 μm and 60 μm.
Elian discloses a comparable sensor unit as discussed above, said sensor unit comprising a semiconductor component configured to form a sensor (semiconductor die 110); and a substrate layer raised from the semiconductor component such that an opening of the substrate layer is positioned above the semiconductor component (circuit board 120 comprising at least one electrically-conductive line 124 and opening 122, e.g., ¶¶ [0030]-[0031] flexible circuit board comprising a polyimide substrate layer and a copper metal layer), wherein a thickness of the substrate layer is within a range between 40 μm and 60 μm (e.g., ¶ [0030] thickness between 35-500 μm, etc.; ¶ [0031] thickness of combined layers approximately 55 μm; etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor unit of Ernst the base(s) having a thickness within a range between 40 μm and 60 μm as taught/suggested by Elian in order to provide a flexible and space-saving sensor unit (Elian, ¶ [0031]) and/or as a simple substitution of one suitable sensor unit base(s) (e.g., combined plastic and metal layer(s)) for another to yield no more than predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 27, Ernst as modified teaches/suggests the limitations of claim 17, and further discloses the sensor is a pressure sensor (¶ [0017]) configured to detect an arterial pressure (an intended use of which the sensor unit of Ernst/Ernst as modified is capable, e.g., when the environment in which the sensor unit is placed, ¶ [0019], is an artery).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst (or Ernst in view of Elian) as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of US 2011/0230068 A1 (previously cited, Pahl '068).
Regarding claim 21, Ernst as modified teaches and/or suggests the limitations of claim 17, wherein the first and second contacting elements are positioned between the semiconductor component and the first and second bases, respectively, as discussed above, but does not expressly disclose the contacting elements comprise a gold material. Pahl '068 discloses a comparable sensor unit, disclosing gold as a suitable material for a contacting element(s) (e.g., ¶ [0021] gold solder or stud bumps), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor unit of Ernst with the contacting element(s) comprising a gold material as taught/suggested by Pahl '068 as a simple substitution of one suitable contact element(s) material for another to yield no more than predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst in view of Pahl '068 (or Ernst in view of Elian and Pahl '068) as applied to claim(s) 21 above, and further in view of US 2004/0130009 A1 (previously cited, Tangpuz).
Regarding claim 22, Ernst as modified teaches/suggests the limitations of claim 21, but does not disclose the thickness of the first and second contacting elements.
Tangpuz teaches/suggests device (e.g., Fig. 10) comprising a semiconductor component (semiconductor die 10); a substrate layer (leadframe structure 100); and a contacting element(s) positioned between the semiconductor component and the substrate layer (solder paste 103), wherein a thickness of the contacting element(s) is within a range between 90 μm and 110 μm (¶ [0052] the solder paste 103 is kept to a desired thickness of about 50-100 μm between the metal stud 20 and die attach region 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor unit of Ernst a thickness of each of the first and second contacting elements being within a range between 90 μm and 110 μm as taught/suggested by Tangpuz in order to facilitate providing even semiconductor component standoff of a desirable distance (Tangpuz, ¶ [0007], ¶ [0052], etc.).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst (or Ernst in view of Elian) as applied to claim(s) 17 above; or alternatively, over Ernst (or Ernst in view of Elian) as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of US 2008/0102096 A1 (previously cited, Molin).
Regarding claim 23, Ernst as modified teaches/suggests the limitations of claim 17, and further discloses the base(s) comprises at least one of a polyimide element, a ceramic material, glass, and silicon, as discussed above (e.g., ¶¶ [0073]-[0074]). Furthermore, Applicant appears to disclose the material of the base(s) being at least one of the above-noted materials is what "configures" the base(s) to be in direct contact with a tissue or fluid of a patient (e.g., ¶ [0016] "the substrate layer can be designed so as to be in direct contact with a tissue and/or a fluid of the patient, in particular with the substrate layer being formed as a polyimide element and/or from a ceramic material, glass, and/or silicon"), such that Ernst as modified meets the limitations of claim 23.
Alternatively/Additionally, Molin discloses integrating a sensor unit with an implantable medical device, e.g., a lead thereof (¶ [0002]), disclosing the sensor unit and/or materials thereof, are subject to biocompatibility standards to configure said units to be in direct contact with a tissue and/or a fluid of the patient (e.g., ¶¶ [0005]-[0012]), Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor unit of Ernst with the base(s) being configured to be in direct contact with a tissue or a fluid of a patient in order to facilitate measuring blood pressure for controlling various functions of an implantable medical device (Molin, ¶ [0002]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst (or Ernst in view of Elian) as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of US 2005/0001324 A1 (previously cited, Dunn).
Regarding claim 24, Ernst as modified teaches/suggests the limitations of claim 17, and further discloses the recess is filled with silicone that at least partially surrounds the semiconductor component (Fig. 1B, filling material 114; ¶ [0097] filling material 114, for example silicone, can be filled into the cavity). Ernst does not expressly disclose said silicone is silicone gel or silicone oil.
Dunn teaches/suggests a comparable sensor unit (Fig. 2) comprising a recess comprising silicone gel (254) at least partially surrounding a semiconductor component therein (device 210), disclosing said silicone gel provides additional mechanical and environmental protection (e.g., ¶ [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the sensor unit of Ernst with the silicone material comprising silicone gel as taught/suggested by Dunn as a simple substitution of one suitable fill or potting material for another to yield no more than predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst (or Ernst in view of Elian) as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of US 2006/0108697 A1 (previously cited, Wang).
Regarding claim 25, Ernst as modified teaches/suggests the limitations of claim 17, but does not teach a size of the semiconductor component corresponds to a size of the recess.
Wang discloses a device comprising a carrier (carrier 50) having a recess (cavity 52); and a semiconductor component (semiconductor device 1), wherein a size of the semiconductor component corresponds to a size of the recess (¶ [0035] the lateral dimensions of cavity 52 are substantially equal to the lateral dimensions of semiconductor device 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor unit of Ernst with a size of the semiconductor component corresponding to a size of the recess as taught/suggested by Wang in order to restrict significant movement of the semiconductor component within the recess, e.g., during assembly of the sensor unit (Wang, ¶ [0035]).
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ernst in view of US 2008/0248614 A1 (previously cited, Yang) and US 2002/0093412 A1 (previously cited, Morrison); or alternatively, over Ernst in view of Elian, Yang and Morrison.
Regarding claims 29-30, Ernst discloses/suggests a method for manufacturing a sensor unit, the method comprising:
providing a first base extending from a first end to a second end (portion of combined base 103 and metal carrier structure 106 disposed to the left of opening 118) and comprising a first contacting element (left contact medium 116);
providing a second base extending from a first end to a second end (portion of combined base 103 and metal carrier structure 106 disposed to the right of opening 118) and comprising a second contacting element (right contact medium 116);
providing a carrier comprising sidewalls (sidewalls 105), wherein a first sidewall is configured to couple with the first base at the second end of the first base and a second sidewall is configured to couple with the second base at the second end of the second base such that the carrier and the first base and the second base define a recess (¶ [0070] sidewalls 105 arranged opposite one another in pairs and connected to the base 103 such that they enclose between them a space, also designated as the interior of the housing 104 or a cavity; etc.);
placing a semiconductor component (sensor chip 102; ¶ [0028]) within the recess of the carrier (¶ [0025] sensor chip 102 is arranged in the housing 104 (Fig. 1B) such that the electrical contacts 112 face the base 103 of the housing 104);
filling the recess with silicone (Fig. 1B, filling material 114; ¶ [0097] filling material 114, for example silicone, can be filled into the cavity);
assembling the sensor unit, wherein assembling the sensor unit by electrically connecting the semiconductor component to the first connecting element and the second contacting element (¶ [0025] contact between the metal carrier structure 106 and the contacts 112 of the chip 102 can be utilized both for a mounting of the sensor chip 102 on the metal carrier structure 106 and for the electrical contact between the contact 112 of the sensor chip 102 and the metal carrier structure 106, for example by virtue of the contacts 112 of the sensor chip 102 being adhesively bonded or soldered on the metal carrier structure 106, for example by a contact medium 116),
Ernst does not disclose the first and second contacting elements are arranged at the first ends of the respective first and second bases, or a space between the first contacting element and the second contacting element defines a width of an opening to the recess. However, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor unit, or method of manufacturing said sensor unit, of Ernst with a space between the first contacting element and the second contacting element defines a width of an opening to the recess, such that the first and second contacting elements are arranged at the first ends of the respective first and second bases (e.g., providing a larger "opening 118" between the bases that extends from the first contacting element to the opposed second contacting element, see modified Fig. 1B above), because Applicant has not disclosed that the recess opening being defined by the space between the first and second contacting elements provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Rather, in all disclosures relevant to the opening, Applicant appears to disclose the opening is instead provided in and/or defined by a "substrate layer," which is understood to correspond to the claimed base(s). At best, Applicant discloses said opening, or a "perforation," is provided "above the semiconductor component…in order to ensure a medium access to a sensor" (e.g., ¶ [0010]). Accordingly, as no evidence has been provided to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the opening (118) arrangement disclosed by Ernst (e.g., Fig. 1B) because either configuration ensures a medium access to the sensor.
Alternatively/Additionally, Elian discloses/suggests a sensor unit (e.g., Fig. 2) comprising:
a first base extending from a first end to a second end and comprising a first contacting element arranged at the first end (see "first base" of annotated Fig. 2D above, or at least a section thereof);
a second base extending from a first end to a second end and comprising a second contacting element arranged at the first end (see "second base" of annotated Fig. 2D above, or at least a section thereof); and
a semiconductor component configured to form a sensor (Fig. 2D, semiconductor die 110 comprising a micro-mechanical element 112 for generating a measurement signal indicative of an external pressure applied thereto),
wherein the first and second contacting elements are configured to electrically connect the semiconductor element to the first and second base, respectively (Fig. 2D, ¶ [0035], etc., solder balls 214 establish an electrical connection between the interface of the die 110 and circuit board 120), and wherein a space between the first contacting element and the second contacting element defines a width of an opening to the sensor (Fig. 2D, opening 122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor unit, or method of manufacturing said sensor unit, of Ernst with the first and second contacting elements being arranged at the first ends of the respective first and second bases and a space between said first and second contacting elements defining a width of the opening to the recess, or sensor arranged therein, as taught/suggested Elian so that the medium applying pressure to the sensing element of the semiconductor device has sufficient access thereto through the opening 122 (Elian, ¶ [0027] and/or as a simple substitution of one suitable opening size ensuring a medium access to a sensor for another to yield no more than predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Ernst as modified does not expressly disclose comprising filling the recess with silicone prior to assembly of the sensor unit, i.e., electrically connecting the semiconductor component to the first connecting element and the second contacting element.
Yang discloses a method comprising placing a component (die 6) within a recess (cavity 4) of a carrier (substrate 2) comprising sidewalls, wherein the recess is within the carrier and is defined by the sidewalls and the base (e.g., Fig. 1); filling the recess with an elastic adhesive material configured to anchor the component inside the recess prior to assembly of a unit (¶ [0025] die 6 is fixed by a preferably elastic adhesion material 8); and assembling the unit by at least electrically connecting the component to a contacting element (¶ [0025] dielectric layer 12 is formed over the die 6; plurality of openings formed within dielectric layer 12; RDL or conductive trace 14 formed on dielectric layer 12 and is electrically connected with the die 6 through I/O pads 10; etc.). Morrison discloses silicone gel is a known and/or suitable elastic adhesion material for anchoring a component inside recess (¶ [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ernst with filling the recess with a filling material, such as a silicone gel, prior to assembly of the sensor unit, wherein the silicone gel is configured to anchor the semiconductor component inside the recess, as taught and/or suggested by Yang and Morrison in order to provide additional protection for the sensor unit by mechanically decoupling the semiconductor component from the carrier (Ernst, ¶ [0021]); aid in retaining the semiconductor component in the recess during subsequent processing (e.g., sensor unit assembly) (Morrison, ¶ [0047]); etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant contends, "However, as shown in FIG. 1B of Ernst, the contacting elements are not located at the same planar level as the opening of the recess, nor are they defined by two distinct bases with contacting elements arranged at their respective first ends. Instead, in Ernst, the metal carrier structure serves both mechanical and electrical functions and is positioned beneath the semiconductor chip, not framing the recess as defined in the amended claim. In contrast, amended independent Claims 17 and 29 recite 'a first base…a second base…such that the carrier and the first base and the second base define a recess' and 'a first contacting element arranged on the first base…a second contacting element arranged on the second base…wherein a space between the first contacting element and the second contact element defines a width of an opening to the recess.' Such an arrangement is illustrated, by way of example and without limitation, in Fig. 1 of the present application…" (Remarks, pgs. 8-9).
The examiner first notes the claim does not appear to recite any component of the sensor unit "frames the recess," such that it is unclear what distinction Applicant is alleging by the contention that the metal carrier structure of Ernst "serves both mechanical and electrical functions and is positioned beneath the semiconductor chip, not framing the recess as defined in the amended claim." Regardless, as noted in the rejection of record above, Applicant fails to disclose any benefit to the claimed arrangement, which, as noted with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) also does not appear to be sufficiently supported by the application as filed. Accordingly, there is no and/or insufficient evidence of record indicating that a modification of Ernst to provide a larger opening (118), i.e., that extends from the first contacting element to the second contacting element (see, e.g., modified Fig. 1B of Ernst above), such that the contacting elements frame the opening of the recess, is any more than a mere matter of design choice.
Alternatively/Additionally, Elian expressly discloses a comparable sensor unit, disclosing the size of said opening can comprise an arbitrary geometry and/or size and further disclosing an opening the same size as or larger than the sensing element of a chip/device ensures the medium applying external pressure to said sensing element has sufficient access thereto through the opening (e.g., ¶ [0027]), such that it would have been obvious to modify the sensor unit of Ernst with extending the opening to the space between the contacting elements for at least the reasons noted in the rejection(s) of record above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Meredith Weare whose telephone number is 571-270-3957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice to schedule an interview.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tse Chen, can be reached on 571-272-3672. 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.
/Meredith Weare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791