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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed on 07/31/2026. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 6, 8, 19 have been amended; claims 2-4, 12-15 have been withdrawn.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/31/2026 have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 03/09/2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/31/2026 have created another Claim Objections, see details in the Claim Objections section below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/31/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 03/09/2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/31/2026 have created another 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections, see details in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 Claim Rejections:
Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 07/31/2026 regarding the prior art of record Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0231431 A1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive because of following reason:
Applicant(s)’ Arguments: (Regarding the independent claim 1 – see detail on page 7 of the Remarks dated 07/31/2026)
Applicant alleged that the prior art of record Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0231431 A1) does not disclose the amended limitation “the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater projecting onto the substrate” recited in the independent claim 1 – see detail on page 7 of the Remarks dated 07/31/2026.
Examiner’s Responses:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Examiner would like to note that Applicant elected Species 2 & 3 (consisting of Figures 19-21) in the reply filed on 12/03/2024. The amended claim 1 recites “the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater projecting onto the substrate”. It is noted that the Instant Application defines “The heater 30 includes a heating portion 31, two wire portions 32, and two electrode portions 33.” in Par.0014. Therefore, the two wire portions 32 and the two electrode portions 33 are also parts of the heater 30, see Fig.20 of the Instant Application. Therefore, according to claim 1, “the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater projecting onto the substrate” requires that the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater 30, including the two wire portions 32 and the two electrode portions 33. However, this feature is not supported by the elected Species 2 & 3 (consisting of Figures 19-21) of the Instant Application. As shown in Fig.20 of the Instant Application, the plurality of supporting columns 23 and 24 overlapping the two wire portions 32. It is further noted that the Instant Application defines “an area R2 denotes an orthogonal projection of the area R1 of the heating portion 31 projecting onto the electrically insulating layer 12 of the substrate 10” in Par.0014 and as illustrated in Figs.19 & 21 of the Instant Application. Therefore, the Specification of the Instant Application defines the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of a certain portion of the heater projecting onto the substrate, which is the heating portion 31 of the heater 30. The Specification of the Instant Application does not indicate and the Drawing of the Instant Application does not illustrate that the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater, including the two wire portions and the two electrode portions of the heater, projecting onto the substrate, as required by the amended claim 1. In contrast, the Instant Application defines the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of a certain portion of the heater projecting onto the substrate, which is the heating portion 31 of the heater 30. Therefore, the limitation “the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater projecting onto the substrate” as recited in claim 1 will be interpreted as the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of a portion of the heater projecting onto the substrate, as defined by the Instant Application. In this case, the prior art Cheng et al. discloses the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of a portion of the heater projecting onto the substrate, which is equivalent to and consistent with the disclosure of the Instant Application. Specifically, Cheng discloses the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) are arranged to avoid overlapping an area (area, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below) denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater (any part of portion of the heater 105, Cheng Figs.4-5) projecting onto the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 is not persuasive.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims are the same as those provided for the independent claim 1 – see detail on pages 7-8 of the Remarks dated 07/31/2026. Therefore, the Examiner’s response to the Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 generally applies to dependent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “plurality of the supporting columns” in line 3. This should be changed to “the plurality of supporting columns” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 6 (line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 5-11, 16-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater projecting onto the substrate” in lines 8-10. This limitation was not described in the Specification or in the Drawings of the Instant Application. Examiner would like to note that Applicant elected Species 2 & 3 (consisting of Figures 19-21) in the reply filed on 12/03/2024. Furthermore, the Instant Application defines “The heater 30 includes a heating portion 31, two wire portions 32, and two electrode portions 33.” in Par.0014. Therefore, the two wire portions 32 and the two electrode portions 33 are also parts of the heater 30, see Fig.20 of the Instant Application. Therefore, according to claim 1, “the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater projecting onto the substrate” requires that the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater 30, including the two wire portions 32 and the two electrode portions 33. However, this feature is not supported by the elected Species 2 & 3 (consisting of Figures 19-21) of the Instant Application. As shown in Fig.20 of the Instant Application, the plurality of supporting columns 23 and 24 overlapping the two wire portions 32. It is further noted that the Instant Application defines “an area R2 denotes an orthogonal projection of the area R1 of the heating portion 31 projecting onto the electrically insulating layer 12 of the substrate 10” in Par.0014 and as illustrated in Figs.19 & 21 of the Instant Application. Therefore, the Specification of the Instant Application defines the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of a certain portion of the heater projecting onto the substrate, which is the heating portion 31 of the heater 30. The Specification of the Instant Application does not indicate and the Drawing of the Instant Application does not illustrate that the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater, including the two wire portions and the two electrode portions of the heater, projecting onto the substrate, as required by the amended claim 1. In contrast, the Instant Application defines the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of a certain portion of the heater projecting onto the substrate, which is the heating portion 31 of the heater 30. Accordingly, claim 1 is 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. For examination purposes, the limitation “the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater projecting onto the substrate” as recited in claim 1 will be interpreted as the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of a portion of the heater projecting onto the substrate, as defined by the Instant Application.
Claims 5-11, 16-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the sidewall structure is plurality of supporting columns” in line 3. This limitation was not described in the Specification or in the Drawings of the Instant Application. The Specification of the Instant Application describes “In this embodiment, there is only one sidewall structure 21 on the thermal insulator 20. The sidewall structure 21 is disposed on the electrically insulating layer 12 of the substrate 10. The sidewall structure 21 is located between the thermal insulation layer 25 and the electrically insulating layer 12 of the substrate 10. The sidewall structure 21 may be in a circular, quadrilateral, or any shape that is suitable for surrounding the area R2. In this embodiment, the sidewall structure 21 is in a square shape, but the disclosure is not limited thereto. In other embodiments, the shape of the sidewall structure 21 may be modified as required.” in Par.0015. There is nowhere in the Specification indicates that the sidewall structure is plurality of supporting columns. Figs.19-21 of the Drawings of the Instant Application also show that the sidewall structure 21 is a square/rectangular box shape that surrounds the orthogonal projection of the heaters projecting onto the substrate. Therefore, the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application do not describe that the sidewall structure is plurality of supporting columns, as recited in claim 8. Accordingly, claim 8 is 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 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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the sidewall structure is plurality of supporting columns” in line 3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 8 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 already discloses “a plurality of supporting columns” in line 3. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation “plurality of supporting columns” recited in claim 8 (line 3) refers to the limitation “a plurality of supporting columns” recited in claim 1 (line 3), or the limitation “plurality of supporting columns” recited in claim 8 (line 3) refers to different support columns. For examination purposes, the limitation “plurality of supporting columns” recited in claim 8 (line 3) will be interpreted as to refer to the limitation “a plurality of supporting columns” recited in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the orthogonal projection of the heater projecting electrically heated wire onto the substrate” in lines 4-5. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Specifically, “the heater projecting electrically heated wire” does not clearly identify whether the orthogonal projection is of the heater or of the electrically heated wire associated with the heater. For examination purposes, the limitation “the orthogonal projection of the heater projecting electrically heated wire onto the substrate” recited in claim 8 will be interpreted as “the orthogonal projection of the electrically heated wire of the heater projecting onto the substrate”.
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 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, 8-9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0231431 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a microelectromechanical heating device (structure 300, Cheng Figs.4-5), comprising a substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5), a heater (heater 105, Cheng Figs.4-5), and a thermal insulator (first membrane layer 104-1, second membrane layer 104-2 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, and four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) (Cheng Par.0092 discloses the first membrane layer 104-1 includes silicon dioxide, Cheng Par.0095 teaches the second membrane layer 104-2 includes silicon dioxide and also teaches the second membrane layer 104-2 includes same material as the first membrane layer 104-1. It is noted that silicon dioxide is thermal insulating material), the thermal insulator (first membrane layer 104-1, second membrane layer 104-2 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, and four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) comprising:
a plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5), disposed on the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5); and
at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C), located above the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) and connected to the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5),
wherein the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C) is spaced apart from the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) by a distance (as shown in Cheng Fig.4), and the heater (heater 105, Cheng Figs.4-5, 9C) is disposed on the at least one thermal insulation layer (Cheng Par.0094 discloses: “a heater 105 is disposed and patterned over the first membrane layer 104-1 as shown in FIG. 9C”),
wherein the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) are arranged in an array (as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5) on the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5), and the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) are arranged to avoid overlapping an area (area, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below) denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater (any part of portion of the heater 105, Cheng Figs.4-5) (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Claim Rejections above for the rejection of the limitation “any part of the heater”; in this case, “any part of the heater” is being interpreted as any part of portion of the heater, as defined by the Instant Application and explained in detail in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Claim Rejections above) projecting onto the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) (As explained previously in the response to Applicant’s arguments and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Claim Rejections above, Examiner would like to note that Applicant elected Species 2 & 3 (consisting of Figures 19-21) in the reply filed on 12/03/2024. It is noted that the Instant Application defines “The heater 30 includes a heating portion 31, two wire portions 32, and two electrode portions 33.” in Par.0014. Therefore, the two wire portions 32 and the two electrode portions 33 are also parts of the heater 30, see Fig.20 of the Instant Application. Therefore, according to claim 1, “the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater projecting onto the substrate” requires that the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater 30, including the two wire portions 32 and the two electrode portions 33. However, this feature is not supported by the elected Species 2 & 3 (consisting of Figures 19-21) of the Instant Application. As shown in Fig.20 of the Instant Application, the plurality of supporting columns 23 and 24 overlapping the two wire portions 32. It is further noted that the Instant Application defines “an area R2 denotes an orthogonal projection of the area R1 of the heating portion 31 projecting onto the electrically insulating layer 12 of the substrate 10” in Par.0014 and see Figs.19 & 21 of the Instant Application. Therefore, the Specification of the Instant Application defines the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of a certain portion of the heater projecting onto the substrate, which is the heating portion 31 of the heater 30. The Specification of the Instant Application does not indicate and the Drawing of the Instant Application does not illustrate that the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater, including the two wire portions and the two electrode portions of the heater, projecting onto the substrate, as required by the amended claim 1. In contrast, the Instant Application defines the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of a certain portion of the heater projecting onto the substrate, which is the heating portion 31 of the heater 30. Therefore, the limitation “the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of the heater projecting onto the substrate” as recited in claim 1 is being interpreted as the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of any part of a portion of the heater projecting onto the substrate, as defined by the Instant Application. In this case, the prior art Cheng et al. discloses the plurality of supporting columns are arranged to avoid overlapping an area denoting an orthogonal projection of a portion of the heater projecting onto the substrate, which is equivalent to and consistent with the disclosure of the Instant Application.).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Cheng discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the thermal insulator (first membrane layer 104-1, second membrane layer 104-2 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, and four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) (Cheng Par.0092 discloses the first membrane layer 104-1 includes silicon dioxide, Cheng Par.0095 teaches the second membrane layer 104-2 includes silicon dioxide and also teaches the second membrane layer 104-2 includes same material as the first membrane layer 104-1. It is noted that silicon dioxide is thermal insulating material) further comprises a sidewall structure (four supporting columns having sidewall structure, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5), wherein the heater (heater 105, Cheng Figs.4-5) has an electrically heated wire (heater 105 is electrically heated wire as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5), and the sidewall structure (sidewall structure of four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) is plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) are arranged to surround the orthogonal projection of the heater projecting electrically heated wire (heater 105 is electrically heated wire as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5, and see area denoting the orthogonal projection of the electrically heated wire of the heater projecting onto the substrate in Cheng annotated Fig.6 below) onto the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) (Cheng Figs.4-5 & annotated Fig.6 below show four supporting columns on four corners surround the orthogonal projection of the heater 105).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Cheng discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) are disposed between the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C) and the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5).
Regarding claim 19, Cheng discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) comprises a non-electrically insulating layer (second substrate 201, Cheng Figs.4-5) (Cheng Par.0102 discloses: “the second substrate 201 is a silicon substrate”; therefore, the second substrate 201 is non-electrically insulating layer) and an electrically insulating layer (intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) which are stacked on each other (as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5), the electrically insulating layer (intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) is located closer to the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C) than the non-electrically insulating layer (second substrate 201, Cheng Figs.4-5).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claims 5-7, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0231431 A1) in view of Garcia-Blanco et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0228733 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C) comprises a plurality of thermal insulation layers (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5 & 9C; see the membrane layer 104 in Cheng Figs.4-5 & the first membrane layer 104-1 in Cheng Fig.9C) (Cheng Par.0092 discloses the first membrane layer 104-1 includes silicon dioxide. It is noted that silicon dioxide is thermal insulating material), one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5) that is located adjacent to the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) is spaced apart from the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) by a distance (as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose
the distance of greater than or equal to 0.2 micrometers.
Garcia-Blanco teaches a microelectromechanical heating device (100, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5):
one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (structure 101 and heat-spreading layer 109, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) (Garcia-Blanco Par.0028 teaches: “The suspended structure 101 is typically made up of a dielectric material such as but not limited to Si, SiO2, Si3N4 or silicon oxinitride. ”, and Garcia-Blanco Par.0029 teaches the heat-spreading layer 109 is made up of SiO2; it is noted that SiO2 is thermal insulating material) that is located adjacent to the substrate (substrate 105, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) is spaced apart from the substrate (substrate 105, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) by a distance (gap g, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) of greater than or equal to 0.2 micrometers (Garcia-Blanco Par.0030 teaches: “The vertical gap g is preferably set between 1 μm and 50 μm”; therefore, Garcia-Blanco teaches greater than 0.2 micrometers as required by the claim.).
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 apparatus of Cheng, by adding the teaching of the distance of greater than 0.2 micrometers, as taught by Garcia-Blanco, in order to obtain the vertical gap with optimal dimension that can separate the underside of the platform from the substrate; with that dimension of the gap, the gap can be small enough to keep the fabrication of the whole microdevice manageable, and the gap can also be large enough to prevent the suspended structure from inadvertently contacting the substrate to create detrimental thermal bridges, as recognized by Garcia-Blanco [Garcia-Blanco, Par.0030].
Regarding claim 6, Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 5, Cheng also discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of supporting columns (each of the four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) is a column-shaped object (as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5), and each of the plurality of supporting columns has a central axis and a width (each column including 204, 103, 101f has central axis and width; Cheng Figs.4-5).
Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco does not explicitly teach:
a distance between the central axes of two of the plurality of supporting columns adjacent to each other, divided by the width is greater than or equal to 15.3.
Regarding the limitation that a distance between the central axes of two of the plurality of supporting columns adjacent to each other, divided by the width is greater than or equal to 15.3, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Figures 4-5 where the reference Cheng discloses certain distance between central axes of two of the supporting columns adjacent to each other and certain dimension of the width of the each supporting column), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Cheng discloses certain distance between central axes of two of the plurality of supporting columns adjacent to each other and certain dimension of the width of the each supporting column, thus, certain ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column is disclosed, and having a specific ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column would affect the integration and electrical connection of the first device 100 with the second device 200. An optimized ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column can minimize parasitic capacitance, reduce signal loss, and enable miniaturized, high-performance sensing. Thus, the ratio of the distance between central axes of two adjacent supporting columns to the width of the each supporting column is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco apparatus by making distance between the central axes of two of the supporting columns adjacent to each other, divided by the width is greater than or equal to 15.3 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 5, Cheng also discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of supporting columns (each of the four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) is a square column or a circular column (It is noted that the limitation “a square column or a circular column” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these is required during examination. In this case, Cheng discloses square columns as shown in Cheng Figs.4-5).
Regarding claim 16, Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-5) comprises a plurality of thermal insulation layers (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-5) (Cheng Par.0092 discloses the first membrane layer 104-1 includes silicon dioxide. It is noted that silicon dioxide is thermal insulating material), the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5) and one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-5) that is located adjacent to the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-5)
Cheng does not explicitly disclose:
the substrate and one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers that is located adjacent to the substrate form an airtight space therebetween
Garcia-Blanco teaches a microelectromechanical heating device (100, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5):
the substrate (substrate 105, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) and one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (structure 101 and heat-spreading layer 109, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) (Garcia-Blanco Par.0028 teaches: “The suspended structure 101 is typically made up of a dielectric material such as but not limited to Si, SiO2, Si3N4 or silicon oxinitride. ”, and Garcia-Blanco Par.0029 teaches the heat-spreading layer 109 is made up of SiO2; it is noted that SiO2 is thermal insulating material) that is located adjacent to the substrate (substrate 105, Garcia-Blanco Fig.5) form an airtight space therebetween (Garcia-Blanco Claim 1 teaches MEMS getter microdevice enclosed in a hermetically sealed package)
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 apparatus of Cheng, by adding the teaching of the substrate and one of the plurality of thermal insulation layers that is located adjacent to the substrate form an airtight space therebetween, as taught by Garcia-Blanco, in order to protect sensitive, fragile components from moisture, contamination, and performance degradation over time.
Regarding claim 17, Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 16, Cheng also discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (each of first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-5) has a plurality of through holes (second recesses 104a and annotated through holes, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below) (Cheng Par.0092 discloses: “the first membrane layer 104-1 is disposed over the second oxide layer 101 d-2, and then patterned to form several second recesses 104 a”), a part of the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-5) extend to the plurality of through holes (annotated through holes, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below) of the plurality of thermal insulation layers (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-5) so as to seal the plurality of through holes (“so as to” here is interpreted as intended result without structural limitation and carries no patentable weight. Since Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches a hermetically sealed package, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 16 above, thus, it is understood the through holes are sealed).
PNG
media_image2.png
577
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 16, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the plurality of thermal insulation layers (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-6) comprise a first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) located adjacent to the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-6) and a second thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104; Cheng Figs.4-6, 9C) disposed on the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6), wherein the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) has a plurality of through holes (through holes, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below), a part of the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-6) extend to the plurality of through holes (through holes, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below) so as to seal the plurality of through holes (“so as to” here is interpreted as intended result without structural limitation and carries no patentable weight. Since Cheng in view of Garcia-Blanco teaches a hermetically sealed package, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 16 above, thus, it is understood the through holes are sealed), the second thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104; Cheng Figs.4-6, 9C) covers the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) (Cheng Figs.4-6 & 9C shows that the first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104 covers portion of the second oxide layer 101d-2), the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-6), and the plurality of through holes (through holes, Cheng annotated Fig.6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
577
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0231431 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0032987 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Cheng also discloses:
wherein the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-6) adjacent the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-6) and are connected to the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-6).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose
the plurality of supporting columns penetrate through the at least one thermal insulation layer
Lee teaches (Lee Fig.1):
the plurality of supporting columns (connecting rods 420, Lee Fig.1) (Lee Par.0087 and Fig.1 teach plurality of connecting rods 420) penetrate through the at least one thermal insulation layer (insulating ring 220, Lee Fig.1) (Lee Par.0086 teaches: “The connecting rod 420 may include a slender member extending downwards from the support plate 410 and penetrating through the insulating ring 220. An upper end of the connecting rod 420 may support the support plate 410 and the focus ring 300”)
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 apparatus of Cheng, by adding the teaching of plurality of supporting columns penetrate through the at least one thermal insulation layer, as taught by Lee, in order to securely connect supporting columns to the platform/table, thereby preventing the platform/table from sliding, tilting, or experiencing a shear failure.
Regarding claim 11, Cheng in view of Lee teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 10, and also teaches:
wherein the at least one thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, second oxide layer 101d-2; Cheng Figs.4-6) comprises a first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) located adjacent to the substrate (second substrate 201 and intermetallic dielectric (IMD) layer 202, Cheng Figs.4-6) and a second thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, Cheng Figs.4-6) disposed on the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6), the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-6) penetrate through (as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10 above) the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) and are connected to the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6), the second thermal insulation layer (first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104, Cheng Figs.4-6) covers the first thermal insulation layer (second oxide layer 101d-2, Cheng Figs.4-6) (Cheng Figs.4-6 & 9C shows that the first membrane layer 104-1 of the membrane layer 104 covers portion of the second oxide layer 101d-2) and the plurality of supporting columns (four supporting columns, wherein each supporting column includes 204, 103, 101f; Cheng Figs.4-6) (It is noted that since Lee Par.0086 teaches: “The connecting rod 420 may include a slender member extending downwards from the support plate 410 and penetrating through the insulating ring 220. An upper end of the connecting rod 420 may support the support plate 410 and the focus ring 300”, thus, the Lee connecting rods 420 only penetrate one insulation layer and configured to support the layer that is on top of the one insulation layer, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10 above. Therefore, in combination, Cheng in view of Lee teaches the second thermal insulation layer covers the first thermal insulation layer and the plurality of supporting columns).
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Zhou et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0314208 A1) discloses a processing chamber including a substrate support or pedestal disposed therein to support substrate during processing. The pedestal may include an embedded heater adapted to control temperature of substrate and/or provide elevated temperatures that may be used in the process.
Gu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,335,231 B2) discloses a micro-Pirani gauge or vacuum sensor including heating element operative to heat a gas and to produce a signal corresponding to the pressure of the gas; a platform configured to receive the heating element, with the platform having a first coefficient of thermal conductivity; and a support element connected to a substrate and configured to support the platform with the heating element within an aperture disposed in the substrate, with the support element having a second coefficient of thermal conductivity, where the second coefficient of thermal conductivity is less than the first coefficient of thermal conductivity.
Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0212070 A1) discloses a semiconductor gas sensor includes a substrate having a cavity, a first insulation layer formed on the substrate, including an exposure hole formed at a position corresponding to the cavity and a peripheral portion of the cavity, a second insulation layer formed on the first insulation layer, covering the exposure hole, a heating electrode formed on the second insulation layer, being formed at a position corresponding to the cavity, a sensing electrode formed over the heating electrode, the sensing electrode being electrically insulated from the heating electrode and a detection layer covering the sensing electrode, and the sensing electrode further being capable of having a variable resistance when interacting with a predetermined kind of gas.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 09/26/2026
