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 12 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges he previous office action included references to “first metal layer” and “second metal layer.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previous office action made no mention of these limitations, since there were not present in the amended claims submitted 24 November 2025. Applicant argues that the recited claim limitations of “first opening,” “second opening,” “first sealing layer,” “second sealing layer, “first surface,” “second surface,” “first inner surface,” and “second inner surface” have antecedent basis within the instant filed specification and associated reference numbers in the instant drawings. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant provides a table with alleged mapping of these limitations to the instant filed specification regarding Fig 2A, the Applicant provided no table for mapping these limitations for non-elected species/embodiments of instant Figs. 3-7; Figs. 9-11; Figs. 12-14; Figs. 15-17; Figs. 18-19, which, based on the instant filed specification, the recited elements in instant independent claim 1 also apply. In addition, the presence of withdrawn claims 7 and 9-20, which are not under examination, and potentially may be rejoined, appear to also contain recited elements that do not have clear antecedent basis within the instant filed specification, such as “third opening” and “third sealing layer. Applicant has not provided any alleged mapping of these recited elements in the withdrawn claims. As an example, non-elected species/embodiment of Figs. 9 and 12 depict two openings 900 and 902 and non-elected species/embodiment of Fig. 15 depicts four openings 1500, 1502, 1506 and 1508. As such, it is unclear as to which the first opening through the substrate is being recited. 37 CFR 1.75(d)(2) refers to different inventions/species in one application and refers to 37 CFR 1.146, thus the claimed elements/terms apply to the non-elected species/embodiments. An identical argument is made for the term second opening related to the second sealing layer. In addition, the table provided by the Applicant that the recited metal layer on the first surface of the substrate is allegedly metal interconnect 206 stated in the instant filed specification. However, the instant filed specification states that metal interconnects 202, 204, 205, 206 and 214 can take the form of pads, vias and traces, which may, or may not be metal layers. As such, it is unclear as to exactly which of the metal interconnects recited in the instant filed specification are exactly being referred to by the claimed invention, thus lacking clear antecedent basis to the instant filed specification. The fact that the Applicant feels that it is necessary that he/she must provide a table to allegedly match the aforementioned elements in the claimed invention to elements recited in the instant filed specification is clear evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date cannot be confident the claimed element is the identical element being clearly referenced within the instant filed specification regarding all disclosed embodiments. The aforementioned recited elements/terms do not have “clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description” as stated in 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If, in fact, the recited elements identically match the instant filed specification terms in the table provided by the Applicant, the Applicant could easily amend the instant filed specification adding the recited elements with an alternative statement. As such, rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and objections to the instant specification and drawings are maintained.
Applicant then argues that Figs. 4 and 6 of the Nagamatsu et al. reference fails to disclose the newly added limitations of “a second sealing layer in at least a region that is between the second surface and the sensor surface and is overlapping with the substrate and the fluid sensor.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Figs. 4 and 6 of Nagamatsu et al. clearly discloses these limitations. A portion of Fig. 4 of Nagamatsu et al. is depicted below which clearly discloses a second sealing layer (31) in at least a region between the second surface and the fluid sensor surface (11) wherein the second sealing layer (31) is overlapping with the substrate (20) and the fluid sensor (11) (see upper right corner of the fluid sensor surface which is clearly surrounded by the second sealing layer).
[AltContent: textbox (second surface)]
[AltContent: textbox (substrate)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (overlapping)]
PNG
media_image1.png
284
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 1-6 and 8 recite the limitations of: “first opening, “second opening,” “first sealing layer,” “second sealing layer,” “first metal layer,” “second metal layer,” “first surface,” “second surface,” “first inner surface,” “second inner surface,” “first gap” and “second gap.” These limitations either do not have reference numbers indicating as to exactly which components in the instant filed drawings, and/or do not appear at all within the instant filed specification, or both.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings are objected to because the instant specification fails to employ reference numbers for the claim limitations of: “first opening, “second opening,” “first sealing layer,” “second sealing layer,” “first metal layer,” “second metal layer,” “first surface,” “second surface,” “first inner surface,” “second inner surface,” “first gap” and “second gap” but appears to employ some reference numbers that may be associated with some of these claim limitations, but it is unclear. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6, 8 and 21 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. Instant independent claim 1 and dependent claims therefrom employ the limitations: “first opening, “second opening,” “first sealing layer,” “second sealing layer,” “first metal layer,” “second metal layer,” “first surface,” “second surface,” “first inner surface,” “second inner surface,” “first gap” and “second gap.” which are not explicitly recited within the instant specification and/or have specific reference numbers associated therewith in the instant drawings of multiple embodiments of the instant claimed invention. The claimed limitations must have clear antecedent basis within the instant filed specification. As such, it is unclear as to the exact elements being recited relative to the instant specification and/or drawings, rendering the claims indefinite.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
As best understood, claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2010/0244171 to Nagamatsu et al. Nagamatsu et al. disclose an apparatus (see entire reference, including multiple embodiments in Figs. 1-6) including a substrate (20) having opposite first and second surfaces, the substrate including a first opening (21) through the substrate; a first sealing layer (25) covering an inner surface of the first opening, the inner surface extending between first and second surfaces; and contact pads (161) on the second surface; a fluid sensor/CMOS sensor/semiconductor device/image sensor (10, 11) (note: the sensor is capable of measuring optical properties of a fluid, thus meeting the broadly recited limitation of “fluid sensor”) having a sensor surface facing the second surface (see embodiment Figs. 4 and 6) and the first opening; metal interconnects (10, 12, 13, 14, 30, 160) coupled to the sensor surface and contact pads (note: 10 is a wiring substrate with wiring layers, which inherently are metal interconnections, or are broadly metal interconnects to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing of the instant invention); a second sealing layer (31) in a in at least a region that is between the second surface and the sensor surface (11) and is overlapping with the substrate and the fluid sensor (11) (see Figs. 4 and 6), in which the second sealing layer surrounds the metal interconnects and includes a second opening (space between sec) that aligns with the first opening, and at least part of the sensor surface is exposed through the first and second openings (meeting the limitations recited in instant independent claim 1); wherein the first sealing layer includes a metal layer which includes gold and nickel see para 0046) (meeting all limitations recited in instant dependent claims 2 and 3); wherein the second sealing layer includes an adhesive being epoxy (see para 0043) (meeting all limitations recited in instant dependent claims 4 and 5 and partial limitations of instant dependent claim 6); wherein the inner surface is a first inner surface; the second opening has a second inner surface; and the second inner surface is a sloping surface (i.e. curved, see Figures of different embodiments, in particular Figs. 4 and 6) (meeting most of the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 6). Nagamatsu et al. does not explicitly disclose that the sloping surface is contiguous to the first inner surface, as recited in instant dependent claim 6. However, Nagamatsu et al. does not limit the extent of the sloping surface of the second sealing layer, only that the second sealing layer must be present to at least cover the contact pads (161), as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to extend the second sealing layer’s sloping surface to be contiguous with the first inner surface, as long as the sensor is exposed to perform sensing. In addition, the instant filed disclosure fails to state any criticality in regards to the sloping surface of the second inner surface being contiguous to the first inner surface, that it solves any particular design or engineering problem, or serves in any functional capacity in regards to the operation of the recited fluid sensor, and, as such, is simply an obvious design choice by one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention, thus meeting all remaining limitations of instant dependent claim 6.
As best understood, claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2010/0244171 to Nagamatsu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0395077 to Luan. Nagamatsu et al. disclose an apparatus having all of the elements stated previously. Nagamatsu et al. does not explicitly disclose the recited elements of instant dependent claim 8, wherein the first sealing layer is on the first surface and further comprises a metal layer on the first surface, the metal layer spaced from the first sealing layer by a gap; wherein the substrate includes a via extending between the first and second surfaces, in which the via is coupled between the metal layer and a contact pad of the contact pads on the second surface. However, one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date is well aware that sensor apparatus and the components thereof employ metal layers (i.e. flat electrodes/electrical pads) that are typically electrically isolated from one another, so that electrical energy/power/signals can flow through individual points where the layers/electrodes/pads without interference of one another, as well as the employment of vias between surfaces (i.e. extending through a substrate/material) to provide electrical conductivity for energy/power/signals. All of the elements recited in instant dependent claim 8 are common and well known electrical elements and associated connectivity and/or electrical isolation of the electrical elements for operation of the apparatus disclosed by Nagamatsu et al., as well as having separation/gaps between metal/conducting elements/pads/etc. which provide electrical isolation and separation for conducting signals. In addition, Luna disclose an apparatus (see entire reference) with a sensor die on a substate, wherein a plurality of electrical contacts (118) at a first surface (106) of the sensor die (102) are positioned around an opening and the sensing component (104) and the plurality of contacts 11 are coupled to electrical and conductive components with the die, separated by gaps (see Fig. 1A and 2) and that one contact of the plurality of contacts may be coupled to the sensing component through internal electrical connections, which may be traces, electrical wiring, conductive layers, conductive vias, or some other electrical connection or combination of electrical connections (see paras 0036 and 0042). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus disclosed by Nagamatsu et al., employing the commonly known elements recited elements in instant dependent claim 8, as taught by Luan, as desired, based on design choice and operational functionality of the apparatus.
As best understood, claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2010/0244171 to Nagamatsu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 10,179,730 to Male et al. Nagamatsu et al. disclose an apparatus having all of the elements stated previously. Nagamatsu et al. does not explicitly disclose that the fluid sensor is configurable to measure a fluid contacting the exposed part of the sensor surface, as recited in instant dependent claim 21. However, it is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date that integrated circuit (IC) sensors, such as the one disclosed by Nagamatsu et al., can be configured to perform fluid sensing by the fluid contacting an exposed part of the fluid sensor surface. This is evidenced by Male et al. Male et al. discloses that various types of sensors can be constructed using the disclosed IC sensor (100) techniques and examples, including without limitation moisture or dew-point sensors, ion sensors, pH sensors, gas flow rate sensors, fluid flow-rate sensors, radiation sensors, pressure sensors, and/or vacuum sensors, as shown by IC sensor (100) (see col. 4, lines 23-35). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the IC fluid sensor disclosed by Nagamatsu et al., by configuring it to sense/measure a fluid contacting the exposed part of the sensor surface, as taught by Male et al., thus providing a gas/fluid flow-rate sensor, if such sensing is desired/required.
Conclusion
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 Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights