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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that Hirota does not teach “wherein a side surface connecting an end of each of the arms on the side facing the substrate and an end of each of the arms on the side opposite to the side facing the substrate is free of a surface parallel to a lamination direction” is not persuasive in view of paragraph [0037] which recites in part: “The supporting beam 4A may have a hexagonal shape in cross-sectional view ... It is good also as the support beam 4B which has a pentagonal shape in view … even when the cross-sectional shape of the support beam is a pentagonal shape or a hexagonal shape”.
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 of this title, 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.
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 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 20200240836 A1) in view of Hirota (JP 2009031197 A).
With regards to claims 8 and 9, Becker discloses: a radiation sensor 100 comprising:
an electromagnetic wave detector 103; and
a pair of arms 105a, 105b that are positioned on both sides with the electromagnetic wave detector interposed there between,
wherein the electromagnetic wave detector includes a temperature detection element and an electromagnetic wave absorber which covers at least a part of the temperature detection element [0041], and
wherein the structure body has a structure in which the electromagnetic wave detector is hung or suspended with respect to a substrate 111 facing the electromagnetic wave detector via the pair of arms (Figs 1A and 1B).
Becker does not explicitly teach wherein area of a surface of the pair of arms on a side facing the substrate is larger than area of a surface thereof on a side opposite to the side facing the substrate, and wherein a side surface connecting an end of each of the arms on the side facing the substrate and an end of each of the arms on the side opposite to the side facing the substrate is free of a surface parallel to a lamination direction. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hirota teaches a radiation sensor 3 supported by a pair of arms 4, wherein the pair of arms may comprise a cross sectional shape comprising pentagonal or semicircular shape [0037] in order to provide additional rigidity [0008], wherein area of a surface of the pair of arms on a side facing the substrate is larger than area of a surface thereof on a side opposite to the side facing the substrate, wherein the arms have a linear shape, and wherein a width of an end of each of the arms on the side facing the substrate is wider than a width of an end of each of the arms on the side opposite to the side facing the substrate. Therefore, in view of the recited benefit, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Becker with the claimed pair of arms as taught by Hirota.
With regards to claim 10, Becker discloses:
an intermediate layer 115; and an antireflection layer [0100], but does not specify the claimed configuration and further wherein a reflection coefficient of electromagnetic waves having a wavelength of 10 pm in a part of the intermediate layer facing the pair of arms is higher than a reflection coefficient of electromagnetic waves having a wavelength of 10 pm in a part of the antireflection layer facing the electromagnetic wave detector. However, those skilled in the art recognize that such a modification would have been known and considered an obvious design choice in order to define an area that is resonant for the radiation to be detected. In view of the recited benefit, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Becker with the claimed configuration.
With regards to claim 11, Becker discloses a shutter which may operate in an open state [0044].
With regards to claims 12 and 13, Becker discloses an array of detectors [0008].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art teach wherein a width of each of the arms gradually narrows from an end of each of the arms on the side facing the substrate to an end of each of the arms on the side opposite to the side facing the substrate, in combination with the other claimed elements. The closest prior art teaches the opposite wherein the width increases from an end of each of the arms on the side facing the substrate to an end of each of the arms on the side opposite to the side facing the substrate with no suggestion to modify the shape with its inverse.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884