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 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Xu fails to anticipate “a micro-bridge structure”. The portions of Xu cited by the Applicants (pg. 1404) describe intermediate steps in the fabrication process. The final product produced by the disclosed fabrication process can be seen in Fig. 2 and Fig. 7(h), wherein the membrane is released, forming an analogous bridge suspended over a concave cavity by two supporting arms.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Xu fails to anticipate “a first electrode…” and “a second electrode…”. The Applicant’s position that a plurality of structures cannot be formed by the application of a single layer of material is not commensurate with the state of the art. The Applicant’s position is akin to arguing that source and drain electrodes in a transistor are a single electrode because they are applied to the substrate in the same electrodeposition step. Additionally, the Examiner would like to further clarify that the previously presented rejection interpreted the disclosed two bonding pads disposed on either side of the heating resistor as analogous to the instantly claimed first (bonding pad on one side of the heating resistor) and second electrodes (bonding pad on the opposite side of the heating resistor).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Xu fails to anticipate a “chemical sensing material” having an electrical resistance responsive to a concentration of gas in the environment. Assuming arguendo that the device of Xu operates by “exhibiting a change in resistance in response to a temperature change of the Pt heater”, that temperature change is caused by exposure to flammable gases, the Applicant’s interpretation of the mode of operation of the device disclosed by Xu is the following: exposure to flammable gases > change temperature > change electrical resistance. It is the position of the Examiner that the Applicant’s position describes the catalytic material being analogous to the instantly recited “chemical sensing material” having an electrical resistance responsive to a concentration of gas in the environment.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Xu fails to disclose the surface of the micro-bridge structure comprises micro-dimple structures. Xu explicitly discloses the catalyst, microheater, and bonding pad being arranged onto an alumina support, wherein the alumina support comprises a mesoporous structure (pg. 1406/B. Sensors). The disclosed mesoporous structure has been interpreted to be fully encompassed by the broader scope defined by the recitation of “micro-dimple structures” and thereby anticipates the instant limitations.
For the above reasons, the previous grounds of rejection have been maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim(s) 1-13 and 15 the Examiner notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.).
Regarding limitations recited in claim(s) 1-13 and 15, which are directed to a manner of operating the disclosed sensors, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (Design, Fabrication, and Characterization of a High-Heating-Efficiency 3-D Microheater for Catalytic Gas Sensors).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a sensor (Fig. 2, Fig. 7, Fig. 8) comprising:
a micro-bridge structure, wherein the micro-bridge structure comprises a concave geometry (see: concave-shaped dielectric membrane);
a first electrode on a surface of the micro-bridge structure (see: Pt heating resistor having two bonding pads);
a second electrode on the surface of the micro-bridge structure (see: Pt heating resistor having two bonding pads); and
a chemical sensing material coupled to the micro-bridge structure overlying the first electrode and the second electrode and exposed to an environment, wherein the chemical sensing material overlays the first electrode and the second electrode and is within the concave geometry of the micro-bridge structure such that the chemical sensing material settles into the concave geometry of the micro-bridge structure during fabrication of the sensor, and wherein the chemical sensing material has an electrical resistance responsive to a concentration of gas in the environment (see: Al2O3-supported 15-wt% Pd disposed on the Pt heating resistor within the concave region of the dielectric membrane; Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 2, Xu further discloses the concave geometry is formed within the micro-bridge structure during the fabrication of the micro-bridge structure (Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 3, Xu further discloses the concave geometry is formed within the micro-bridge structure during the fabrication of the sensor in response to an actuation during deposition of the chemical sensing material (Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 4, Xu further discloses the actuation comprises an electrical actuation of the micro-bridge structure (Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 5, Xu further discloses the actuation comprises a heat-based actuation of the micro-bridge structure (Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 6, Xu further discloses the surface of the micro-bridge structure upon which the chemical sensing material is deposited comprises micro-dimple structures for increasing a surface roughness of the surface (Fig. 2, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, see: concave-shaped dielectric membrane comprising a porous Al2O3 support, both the concave shape and the porous surface would be encompassed by the scope defined by the recitation of “micro-dimple structures”).
Regarding claim 7, Xu further discloses the first electrode and the second electrode are configured to control flow of the chemical sensing material during the fabrication of the sensor (Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses a sensor (Fig. 2, Fig. 7, Fig. 8) comprising:
a micro-bridge structure, wherein a surface of the micro-bridge structure comprises micro-dimple structures for increasing a surface roughness of the surface (see: concave-shaped dielectric membrane comprising a porous Al2O3 support, both the concave shape and the porous surface would be encompassed by the scope defined by the recitation of “micro-dimple structures”);
a first electrode on the surface of the micro-bridge structure (see: Pt heating resistor having two bonding pads);
a second electrode on the surface of the micro-bridge structure (see: Pt heating resistor having two bonding pads); and
a chemical sensing material coupled to the micro-bridge structure overlying the first electrode and the second electrode and exposed to an environment, wherein the chemical sensing material overlays the first electrode and the second electrode and is deposited over the surface of the micro-bridge structure such that flowing of the chemical sensing material during deposition is impacted by the micro-dimple structures of the micro-bridge structure during fabrication of the sensor, and wherein the chemical sensing material has an electrical resistance responsive to a concentration of a gas in the environment (see: Al2O3-supported 15-wt% Pd disposed on the Pt heating resistor within the concave region of the dielectric membrane; Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 9, Xu further discloses the micro-bridge structure comprises a concave geometry (Fig. 2, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, see: concave-shaped dielectric membrane) such that the chemical sensing material settles into the concave geometry of the micro-bridge structure during the fabrication of the sensor (Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 10, Xu further discloses the concave geometry is formed within the micro-bridge structure during the fabrication of the micro-bridge structure (Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 11, Xu further discloses the concave geometry is formed within the micro-bridge structure during the fabrication of the sensor in response to an actuation during the deposition of the chemical sensing material (Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 12, Xu further discloses the actuation comprises an electrical actuation of the micro-bridge structure (Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 13, Xu further discloses the actuation comprises a heat-based actuation of the micro-bridge structure (Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 15, Xu further discloses the first electrode and the second electrode are configured to control flow of the chemical sensing material during the fabrication of the sensor (Regarding the recitation of a method of making said sensor, the examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J EOM whose telephone number is (571)270-7075. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM).
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 5712721254. 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.
/ROBERT J EOM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights