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 .
Claim and Specification Status
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claims 1 and 11-13 in the Applicant’s response dated 22 December 2025. The claim amendment and the Applicant’s accompanying comments have been addressed below.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the abstract in the Applicant’s response dated 22 December 2025 and the objection to the specification has therefore been withdrawn.
The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 7-8, 10 and 14-20 in the Applicant’s response dated 22 December 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 9 and claim 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one electrode" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “at least one sensing electrode”, therefore it is unclear if “the at least one electrode” is the “at least one sensing electrode”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the at least one electrode" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “at least one sensing electrode”, therefore it is unclear if “the at least one electrode” is the “at least one sensing electrode”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one electrode" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “at least one sensing electrode”, therefore it is unclear if “the at least one electrode” is the “at least one sensing electrode”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one electrode" in lines 2 and 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “at least one sensing electrode”, therefore it is unclear if “the at least one electrode” is the “at least one sensing electrode”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a semiconductor device of claim 1" in lines 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a semiconductor device”, therefore it is unclear if “a semiconductor device of claim 1” is the “semiconductor device” of claim 1 or a new semiconductor device.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8 which has been cancelled from the instant application. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
For examination purposes, claim 9 will be treated as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peter Offermans et al. (US 2010/0176822 A1; hereinafter “Offermans”).
Regarding Claim 1, Offermans teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a substrate (1, Fig. 1(c), para [0042] describes a substrate 1);
a nanotube vertically arranged on the substrate (3, Fig. 1(c), para [0043] describes a nanowire 3) and configured to undergo a deformation in response to an applied shear force (configured to); and
at least one sensing electrode arranged on a side surface of the nanotube (4, Fig. 1(c), para [0037] describes a surrounding electrode 4 arranged on a side surface of nanotube 3 wherein surrounding electrode 4 is electrically connected to measurement pad 7 for sensing) and configured to undergo a deformation in response to an applied shear force (4, Fig. 1(c), para [0037] describes a surrounding electrode 4 arranged on a side surface of nanotube 3 wherein surrounding electrode 4 is electrically connected to measurement pad 7 for sensing wherein the limitation “configured to” is a recitation of a property of the device; because the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to the device claimed wherein a nanotube 3 is vertically arranged on a substrate 1 with at least one sensing electrode 4 arranged on a side surface of the nanotube, the claims property is presumed to be present (see MPEP 2112.01(I))); and
a lower electrode arranged under the nanotube and functioning as a source electrode (8, Fig. 1(c), para [0070] describes a bottom electrode 8 that can act as a source electrode); and
an upper electrode arranged on a top of the nanotube and functioning as a drain electrode (10, Fig. 1(c), para [0070] describes a top electrode 10 that can act as a drain electrode);
wherein the deformation of the nanotube under the applied shear force causes a variation in a charge distribution or an electric field associated with the nanotube (3, Fig. 1(c), para [0043] describes a nanowire 3 further please see the above description for the deformation of the nanotube under the applied shear force wherein the deformation of the nanotube under the applied shear force is presented above as “configured to” wherein “configured to” is a recitation of a property of the device; because the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to the device claimed, the claims property is presumed to be present (see MPEP 2112.01(I))), and the at least one sensing electrode is configured to detect the variation (4, Fig. 1(c), para [0037] describes a surrounding electrode 4 arranged on a side surface of nanotube 3 wherein surrounding electrode 4 is electrically connected to measurement pad 7 for sensing, this limitation “configured to” is a recitation of a property of the device; because the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to the device claimed wherein a nanotube 3 is vertically arranged on a substrate 1 with at least one sensing electrode 4 arranged on a side surface of the nanotube, the claims property is presumed to be present (see MPEP 2112.01(I)));
wherein the semiconductor device is configured to determine a magnitude or a direction of the shear force based on a change in current flowing between the source electrode and the drain electrode that results from the detected variation (8 and 10, Fig. 1(c), para [0070] describes a bottom electrode 8 that can act as a source electrode and a top electrode that can act as a drain electrode wherein the limitation “configured to” is a recitation of a property of the device; because the structure of the prior art is substantially identical to the device claimed wherein a nanotube 3 is vertically arranged on a substrate 1 with at least one sensing electrode 4 arranged on a side surface of the nanotube and a source electrode 8 arranged as a bottom electrode and a drain electrode 10 arranged as a top electrode, the claims property is presumed to be present (see MPEP 2112.01(I))).
Regarding Claim 3, Offermans teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the nanotube has a diameter of 1 nm to 1000 nm, or has a thickness of 1 nm to 10 nm, or has a height of 10 nm to 100 micrometer (3, Fig. 1(c), para [0085] describes wherein nanotube 3 may have a diameter from 50 nm to 100 nm).
Regarding Claim 4, Offermans teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein an aspect ratio of the nanotube is 1:1 to 1:1000 (3, Fig. 1(c), para [0085] describes wherein nanotube 3 may have a height of about 3 μm and may have a diameter from 50 nm to 100 nm wherein a resulting aspect ratio is from 50:3000 to 100:3000 or 1:60 to 1:30 which falls within the range of 1:1 to 1:1000).
Regarding Claim 12, Offermans teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising an insulator between the at least one nanotube and the at least one electrode (5, Fig. 1(c), para [0040] describes a gap 5 between the at least one nanotube 3 and at least one electrode 4 wherein a gap 5 of air is an insulator).
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.
Claims 5-6, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter Offermans et al. (US 2010/0176822 A1; hereinafter “Offermans”) and in further view of the following arguments:
Regarding Claim 5, Offermans teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1,
wherein the at least one electrode includes a first electrode and a second electrode spaced apart from each other (4, FE and SE, annotated Fig. 3(a), para [0052] describes a surrounding electrode 4 configuration such as found in Fig. 1(c) wherein annotated Fig. 3(a) depicts a surrounding electrode 4 comprising a first electrode FE and a second electrode SE spaced apart from each other by nanowire 3 and gap 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
391
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Offermans fails to explicitly disclose the semiconductor device of claim 1,
wherein the first electrode senses a change in charge distribution due to a first direction component of an applied shear force,
wherein the second electrode senses a change in charge distribution due to a second direction component of the applied shear force,
wherein the first direction is parallel or anti-parallel to a direction from a center of the nanotube to a region in which the first electrode is arranged,
wherein the second direction is parallel or anti-parallel to a direction from the center of the nanotube to a region in which the second electrode is arranged.
However, Offermans teaches the structural limitations of claim 1 and claim 5, wherein the functional limitations of claim 5 describing shear force sensing characteristics of the at least one electrode are inherent characteristics and the structure of Offermans inherently possess the functionality defined in the limitations of claim 5 of the instant application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the device of Offermans as shown in Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 3(a), inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of claim 5 with respect to the shear force sensing characteristics (see MPEP 2114 (I)), furthermore Offermans teaches all the structural limitations of claim 1 and claim 5 of the instant application and therefore a manner of operating the device such as described in the shear force sensing of claim 5 does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art (see MPEP 2114 (II)).
Regarding Claim 6, Offermans teaches the structural limitations of the semiconductor device of claim 5.
Offermans fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular to each other, and the semiconductor device senses a change in a two-dimensional direction charge distribution of the applied shear force.
However, Offermans teaches the structural limitations of claim 1 and claim 5, wherein the functional limitations of claim 6 describing two-dimensional direction charge distribution sensing characteristics of the at least one electrode are inherent characteristics and the structure of Offermans inherently possess the functionality defined in the limitations of claim 6 of the instant application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the device of Offermans as shown in Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 3(a), inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of claim 6 with respect to the two-dimensional direction charge distribution sensing characteristics (see MPEP 2114 (I)), furthermore Offermans teaches all the structural limitations of claim 1 and claim 5 of the instant application and therefore a manner of operating the device such as described in the two-dimensional direction charge distribution sensing of claim 6 does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art (see MPEP 2114 (II)).
Regarding Claim 9, Offermans teaches the structural limitations of the semiconductor device of claim 1.
Offerman teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1,
wherein the at least one electrode is used for sensing current in an area where the at least one electrode overlaps the nanotube (para [0068] describes wherein a change in capacitance between the nanowire 3 and the surrounding electrode 4 may be measured directly or its effect on the current through the nanowire may be measured).
Offermans fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensed current is used for a shear force calculation.
However, Offermans teaches the structural limitations of claim 1, wherein the functional limitations of claim 1 describing two-dimensional direction charge distribution sensing characteristics of the at least one electrode are inherent characteristics and the structure of Offermans inherently possess the functionality defined in the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the device of Offermans as shown in Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 3(a), inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of claim 9 with respect to the shear force sensing characteristics (see MPEP 2114 (I)), furthermore Offermans teaches all the structural limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and therefore a manner of operating the device such as described in the shear force sensing of claim 9 does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art (see MPEP 2114 (II)).
Regarding Claim 11, Offermans teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1,
wherein the at least one electrode includes one electrode which is in contact with one area of the nanotube (4, Fig. 1(c) depicts wherein the at least one electrode 4 is in contact with at least one area of the nanotube 4 through substrate 1 and insulator 2),
wherein the one electrode is used as a sensing electrode (4, Fig. 1(c), para [0037] describes the surrounding electrode 4 arranged on a side surface of nanotube 3 wherein surrounding electrode 4 is electrically connected to measurement pad 7 for sensing)
Offermans fails to explicitly disclose the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the at least one electrode is used to measure one direction component of the shear force,
wherein the one direction is parallel or anti-parallel to a direction from a center of the nanotube to the one area.
However, Offermans teaches the structural limitations of claim 1 and 11, wherein the functional limitations of claim 11 describing shear force direction sensing characteristics of the at least one electrode are inherent characteristics and the structure of Offermans inherently possess the functionality defined in the limitations of claim 11 of the instant application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the device of Offermans as shown in Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 3(a), inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of claim 11 with respect to the shear force direction sensing characteristics (see MPEP 2114 (I)), furthermore Offermans teaches all the structural limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and therefore a manner of operating the device such as described in the shear force direction sensing of claim 11 does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art (see MPEP 2114 (II)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter Offermans et al. (US 2010/0176822 A1; hereinafter “Offermans”) and in view of Seung Hoon Sung et al. (US 2019/0305085 A1; hereinafter “Sung”):
Regarding Claim 2, Offermans discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Offermans fails to explicitly disclose the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the nanotube is a cylindrical structure in which a diameter decreases as a distance from the substrate increases.
However, Sung teaches a similar sensor device, wherein the nanotube is a cylindrical structure in which a diameter decreases as a distance from the substrate increases (W1 and W2, Fig. 1, para [0025] describes wherein the nanowire channel region 120 has a conical shape with a first width W1 at a side closer to the substrate 105 that is larger than a second width W2 at a distance farther away from the substrate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Offermans with Kim to further disclose a sensor device wherein a width of a nanowire at a source side closest to a substrate is wider than a width of a nanowire at a drain side further from a substrate in order to provide the advantage of increasing the bandgap of a channel region at a drain boundary while not affecting a bandgap at a source boundary so that an off-state current leakage can be reduced (Sung, para [0011] and para [0025]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter Offermans et al. (US 2010/0176822 A1; hereinafter “Offermans”) and in view of Zhong L. Wang (US 2011/0006286 A1; hereinafter “Wang”):
Regarding Claim 13, Offermans discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Offermans discloses a shear force sensor comprising:
a semiconductor device of claim 1, the semiconductor device including at least one nanotube (3, Fig. 1(c), para [0043] describes a nanowire 3) and at least one electrode arranged on a side surface of each of the at least one nanotube (4, Fig. 1(c), para [0037] describes a surrounding electrode 4 arranged on a side surface of nanotube 3 wherein surrounding electrode 4 is electrically connected to measurement pad 7 for sensing).
Offermans fails to explicitly disclose a processor for calculating a shear force applied to the semiconductor device by using a change in charge distribution sensed through the at least one electrode.
However, Wang teaches a similar sensor device, comprising:
a processor for calculating a shear force applied to the semiconductor device by using a change in charge distribution sensed through the at least one electrode (146, Fig. 2, para [0030] describes a signal processor 146 that generates a signal corresponding to the vibrations sensed by the electrodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Offermans with Wang to further disclose a sensor device comprising a processor for calculating a shear force applied to a semiconductor device in order to provide the advantage of analyzing a signal generated by nanotube structures so that the measurements found may be used in a final device calculation such as in a hearing aid (Wang, para [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ALEXANDER M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571(272)-1864. 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.
/ALEXANDER MICHAEL MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898