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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/28/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/17/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, a complete copy of EP 1615038 A3 has not been filed. Instead, only the first 2 pages of the reference were filed. The Examiner suggests filing a complete copy of the reference.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 22-27 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-5, 9-10, and 13-16, drawn to a CMOS-based MEMS thermal accelerometer.
Group II, claim(s) 22-23, drawn to a method of fabricating a liquid-based CMOS MEMS thermal accelerometer.
Group III, claim(s) 24-27, drawn to a method of selecting a working fluid for and operating a CMOS-based MEMS thermal accelerometer.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group I lacks unity of invention with both of groups II and III because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of various elements of claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of the NPL titled “A Reliable Liquid-Based Highly Sensitive Micro Thermoresistive Convective Accelerometer by Using 0.35μM CMOS MEMS Technology” (hereinafter Wang), or alternatively the NPL titled “A Reliable Liquid-Based Highly Sensitive Micro Thermoresistive Convective Accelerometer by Using 0.35μM CMOS MEMS Technology” (hereinafter Wang) in view of Qian et al. (CN 110236671 A, hereinafter Qian) and Oh et al. (KR 20070101641 A, hereinafter Oh). Specifically, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 using these references. Accordingly, groups I-II do not share a special technical feature, and groups I and III do not share a special technical feature.
Groups II-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of
a CMOS-based MEMS thermal accelerometer, a cavity, a resistive microheater, at least two upstream temperature detectors, and at least two downstream temperature detectors,
this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Wang.
Specifically, Wang teaches a CMOS-based MEMS thermal accelerometer (title and fig. 1b-c), a cavity C (fig. 1 below), a resistive microheater Rh, at least two upstream temperature detectors Ru1-Ru2, and at least two downstream temperature detectors Rd1-Rd2. Accordingly, groups II-III do not share a special technical feature.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-5, 9-10 and 13-16 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 1 recites “wherein D represents a distance, measured along an upstream-to-downstream direction, from a centerline of the resistive microheater to a respective centerline of each of the at least two upstream temperature detectors and each of the at least two downstream temperature detectors.”
The upstream detectors and downstream detectors are on opposite sides of the microheater. This means that the upstream and downstream detectors are distanced from the microheater in two opposite directions. However, the upstream-to-downstream direction is only one direction. Accordingly, it is unclear how the distance D is measured along an upstream-to-downstream direction, from a centerline of the resistive microheater to a respective centerline of each of the at least two upstream temperature detectors and each of the at least two downstream temperature detectors. The distance D from the microheater to one of the sets of detectors has to be measured in downstream-to-upstream direction and not the upstream-to-downstream direction.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the measurement direction is an appropriate one of the upstream and downstream directions as needed.
Claims 2-5, 9-10 and 13-16 are indefinite for depending from claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-10, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the NPL titled “A Reliable Liquid-Based Highly Sensitive Micro Thermoresistive Convective Accelerometer by Using 0.35μM CMOS MEMS Technology” (hereinafter Wang).
As to claim 1, Wang teaches a CMOS-based MEMS thermal accelerometer (title) comprising:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C5)][AltContent: textbox (C3 and C4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1)][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
862
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate (PCB board – fig. 1) defining a cavity C (fig. 1 above), the substrate having a first waterproof coating C1 (made of “Parylene C” in fig. 1 above; also see the section titled “CONCEPT AND FABRICATION” in the second column of pg. 745) formed thereon;
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (B2 )][AltContent: textbox (B1 )][AltContent: textbox (CSB )]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (SR)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1)]
PNG
media_image2.png
218
190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a sensing region SR (fig. 1 above) having a planar size (see fig. 4a);
a central suspended beam CSB (fig. 1 above) extending over the cavity;
a first detector-supporting suspended beam B1 (fig. 1 above) extending over the cavity on a first side of the central suspended beam, the first detector-supporting suspended beam having a width;
a second detector-supporting suspended beam B2 (fig. 1 above) extending over the cavity on a second side of the central suspended beam opposite to the first side, the second detector - supporting suspended beam having a width;
a resistive microheater (the sections titled “INTRODUCTION” and “CONCEPT AND FABRICATION” on pg. 745 teach that the heater is a microstructure; figs. 1 and 4 teach that the heating element Rh is a section of polysilicon and operates as a resistive heater to provide heat to the temperature detectors Ru1, Ru2, Rd1, Rd2; the microheater of Wang is the heating element in combination with at least the second water proof coating C2 in fig. 1 above) supported by the central suspended beam (see fig. 1) and suspended over the cavity, the resistive microheater including a second waterproof coating C2 formed along an outer periphery of the resistive micro heater, wherein, over the cavity, the second waterproof coating is spaced apart from the first waterproof coating, and wherein the resistive microheater has a width;
at least two upstream temperature detectors Ru1-Ru2 (see figs. 1 and 4; fig. 4c and the description thereof, located directly beneath fig. 4, teach that resistive elements Ru1, Ru2, Rd1, Rd2 are temperature detectors) supported by the first detector-supporting suspended beam B1 (fig. 1 above) and suspended over the cavity at a position upstream of the resistive microheater (detectors Ru1-Ru2 can be considered to be upstream of the microheater, as broadly recited), the at least two upstream temperature detectors including a third waterproof coating C3 (fig. 1 above) formed along an outer periphery of the upstream temperature detectors, (see the section titled “Effect of Parylene-C Coating” on pg. 747, which teaches that no short-circuits are detected, due to the coating), wherein, over the cavity, the third waterproof coating is spaced apart from the first waterproof coating and is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating;
at least two downstream temperature detectors Rd1-Rd2 (fig. 4c and the description thereof, located directly beneath fig. 4, teach that resistive elements Ru1, Ru2, Rd1, Rd2 are temperature detectors) supported by the second detector-supporting suspended beam B2 (fig.1 above) and suspended over the cavity at a position downstream of the resistive microheater (temperature detectors Rd1-Rd2 can be considered to be located downstream of the heater, as broadly recited), the at least two downstream temperature detectors including a fourth waterproof coating C4 (fig. 1 above) formed along and outer periphery of the downstream temperature detectors (see the section titled “Effect of Parylene-C Coating” on pg. 747, which teaches that no short-circuits are detected, due to the coating), wherein, over the cavity, the fourth waterproof coating is spaced apart from the first waterproof coating and is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating; and
a waterproof cover “Cover” (see fig. 1) positioned over the cavity, the resistive microheater, the at least two upstream temperature detectors, and the at least two downstream temperature detectors, the waterproof cover configured to enclose a convection liquid therein (the second column of pg. 745 teaches “the working fluid is sealed within a PMMA cover (Fig.1 (c)-vi)”; fig. 1 and at least the section titled “Experimental Results” on pg. 747 teach that the working fluid is a liquid, such as water or alcohol; accordingly, the cover is at least substantially waterproof);
wherein the at least two upstream temperature detectors and the at least two downstream temperature detectors are arranged symmetrically (at least substantially symmetrically – see fig. 4a) on opposite sides of the resistive microheater;
[AltContent: ]
[AltContent: textbox (2L)]
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 4a)]
PNG
media_image3.png
405
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein D (fig. 4a above) represents a distance, measured along an upstream-to-downstream direction (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim), from a centerline of the resistive microheater to a respective centerline of each of the at least two upstream temperature detectors and each of the at least two downstream temperature detectors;
wherein L (see fig. 4a above) represents one-half of a length of the sensing region measured along the upstream-to-downstream direction.
Wang does not explicitly teach that the planar size is 600 µm by 600 µm,
the first detector-supporting suspended beam having a width of 68 µm,
the second detector - supporting suspended beam having a width of 68 µm,
the resistive microheater has a width of 75 µm,
wherein the ratio D/L is 0.55, corresponding to a peak of a non-monotonic relationship between the ratio D/L and a temperature difference between the at least two upstream temperature detectors and the at least two downstream temperature detectors.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Wang such that the planar size is 600 µm by 600 µm, the first detector-supporting suspended beam having a width of 68 µm, the second detector - supporting suspended beam having a width of 68 µm, and the resistive microheater has a width of 75 µm, since such modifications would be mere changes in the dimensions/proportions of the apparatus for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Regarding the limitation wherein D/L is 0.55,
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, instant ¶54 states “To optimize the location of detectors, the optimal location (D/L=0.55) of the temperature detector is predicted by the compact model shown in FIG. 8.” Accordingly, the claimed ratio is predicted by a model as providing an optimization of a function, as opposed to a qualitatively new/different function relative to the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dimension D of the modified Wang such that the ratio D/L is 0.55 since such a modification would be a mere change in dimension(s)/proportion(s) of the apparatus for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Wang as modified teaches wherein the ratio D/L is 0.55, corresponding to a peak of a non-monotonic relationship between the ratio D/L and a temperature difference between the at least two upstream temperature detectors and the at least two downstream temperature detectors (since the modified Wang has the claimed ratio, the ratio corresponds to a peak of a non-monotonic relationship between the ratio D/L and a temperature difference between the at least two upstream temperature detectors and the at least two downstream temperature detectors, as broadly recited; additionally or alternatively, instant ¶54 discloses that the peak is provided by a “compact model” illustrated in instant fig. 8, meaning a compact model, which is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus, is able to be configured with respect to Wang as modified such that the ratio 0.55 of the modified Wang corresponds to a peak of a non-monotonic relationship between the ratio D/L and a temperature difference between the at least two upstream temperature detectors and the at least two downstream temperature detectors).
As to claim 2, Wang teaches wherein the cavity-defining substrate is made of silicon (see fig. 1(C)-v).
As to claim 3, Wang teaches wherein the two downstream temperature detectors are selected from aluminum or polysilicon temperature detectors (at least the abstract and fig. 1 teach that the two downstream temperature detectors are made of aluminum).
As to claim 4, Wang teaches wherein the two upstream temperature detectors are selected from aluminum or polysilicon temperature detectors (at least the abstract and fig. 1 teach that the two upstream temperature detectors are made of aluminum).
As to claim 5, Wang teaches wherein the resistive microheater is a polysilicon resistive microheater (see fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Wang teaches wherein each of the first waterproof coating, the second waterproof coating, the third waterproof coating, and the fourth waterproof coating is a polymer coating (see fig. 1 above; see the cited evidentiary NPL titled “On the use of Parylene C polymer as substrate for peripheral nerve electrodes,” which teaches in the abstract and title that Parylene C a polymer; additionally, it is noted that pg. 3 of the NPL teaches that Parylene C is used as a coating; accordingly, the waterproof coating of Wang is a polymer coating).
As to claim 10, Wang teaches wherein each of the polymer coatings comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of para-xylylene polymers, chlorinated poly (para-xylylene) polymers (corresponding to the Parylene C taught by Wang), urethane, acrylic, or silicone.
As to claim 13, Wang teaches wherein the convection liquid is water (see the sections titled “Experimental Results” and “CONCLUSION” on pgs. 747-748).
As to claim 14, Wang teaches wherein the convection liquid has a normalized Rayleigh number greater than that of air (see fig. 3 and the description thereof directly below fig. 3 on pg. 746).
As to claim 15, Wang teaches wherein the ratio D/L of 0.55 is determined from a curve generated by a compact model, wherein the compact model is determined based on at least one characteristic of the convection liquid (the compact model is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus, and the prior art ratio is capable of having been determined from such a curve), and the at least one characteristic comprises a normalized Rayleigh number (which is shown in fig. 3 and the description thereof directly below fig. 3 on pg. 746) of the convection liquid.
As to claim 16, Wang teaches wherein a selection of the convective fluid is determined at least based on the normalized Rayleigh numbers of a plurality of candidate convective fluids (the selection of the convective fluid of Wang is capable of having been determined at least based on the normalized Rayleigh numbers of a plurality of candidate convective fluids).
An alternate rejection of claim 10 is provided below in case Applicant argues that the Parylene C of Wang does not read any of the materials recited in claim 10.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Xing (CN 210625698 U).
As to claim 10, Wang teaches wherein each of the polymer coatings comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of para-xylylene polymers, chlorinated poly (para-xylylene) polymers (corresponding to the Parylene C taught by Wang), urethane, acrylic, or silicone.
If Applicant argues that the Parylene C of Wang does not read on the claimed chlorinated poly (para-xylylene) polymers,
Xing teaches the concept of a corrosion-resistant sensor chip provided with a waterproof coating 2, which is an acrylic waterproof coating (¶26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Wang to use acrylic as the polymer coating, as taught by Xing, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one waterproof coating for another for the predictable result that the elements of the sensor covered by the coating are still successfully protected with a waterproof coating.
Alternative rejections of claims 1-5, 9-10 and 13-16 are provided below in case Applicant argues that the cover is not waterproof and in case Applicant argues that the waterproof coating does not cover all of the temperature detectors.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the NPL titled “A Reliable Liquid-Based Highly Sensitive Micro Thermoresistive Convective Accelerometer by Using 0.35μM CMOS MEMS Technology” (hereinafter Wang) in view of Qian et al. (CN 110236671 A, hereinafter Qian) and Oh et al. (KR 20070101641 A, hereinafter Oh).
As to claim 1, Wang teaches a CMOS-based MEMS thermal accelerometer (title) comprising:
a substrate (PCB board – fig. 1) defining a cavity C (fig. 1 above), the substrate having a first waterproof coating C1 (made of “Parylene C” in fig. 1 above; also see the section titled “CONCEPT AND FABRICATION” in the second column of pg. 745) formed thereon;
a sensing region SR (fig. 1 above) having a planar size (see fig. 4a);
a central suspended beam CSB (fig. 1 above) extending over the cavity;
a first detector-supporting suspended beam B1 (fig. 1 above) extending over the cavity on a first side of the central suspended beam, the first detector-supporting suspended beam having a width;
a second detector-supporting suspended beam B2 (fig. 1 above) extending over the cavity on a second side of the central suspended beam opposite to the first side, the second detector - supporting suspended beam having a width;
a resistive microheater (the sections titled “INTRODUCTION” and “CONCEPT AND FABRICATION” on pg. 745 teach that the heater is a microstructure; figs. 1 and 4 teach that the heating element Rh is a section of polysilicon and operates as a resistive heater to provide heat to the temperature detectors Ru1, Ru2, Rd1, Rd2; the microheater of Wang is the heating element in combination with at least the second water proof coating C2 in fig. 1 above) supported by the central suspended beam (see fig. 1) and suspended over the cavity, the resistive microheater including a second waterproof coating C2 formed along an outer periphery of the resistive micro heater, wherein, over the cavity, the second waterproof coating is spaced apart from the first waterproof coating, and wherein the resistive microheater has a width;
at least two upstream temperature detectors Ru1-Ru2 (see figs. 1 and 4; fig. 4c and the description thereof, located directly beneath fig. 4, teach that resistive elements Ru1, Ru2, Rd1, Rd2 are temperature detectors) supported by the first detector-supporting suspended beam B1 (fig. 1 above) and suspended over the cavity at a position upstream of the resistive microheater (detectors Ru1-Ru2 can be considered to be upstream of the microheater, as broadly recited), the at least two upstream temperature detectors including a third waterproof coating C3 (fig. 1 above) formed along an outer periphery of the upstream temperature detectors, (see the section titled “Effect of Parylene-C Coating” on pg. 747, which teaches that no short-circuits are detected, due to the coating), wherein, over the cavity, the third waterproof coating is spaced apart from the first waterproof coating and is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating;
at least two downstream temperature detectors Rd1-Rd2 (fig. 4c and the description thereof, located directly beneath fig. 4, teach that resistive elements Ru1, Ru2, Rd1, Rd2 are temperature detectors) supported by the second detector-supporting suspended beam B2 (fig.1 above) and suspended over the cavity at a position downstream of the resistive microheater (temperature detectors Rd1-Rd2 can be considered to be located downstream of the heater, as broadly recited), the at least two downstream temperature detectors including a fourth waterproof coating C4 (fig. 1 above) formed along and outer periphery of the downstream temperature detectors (see the section titled “Effect of Parylene-C Coating” on pg. 747, which teaches that no short-circuits are detected, due to the coating), wherein, over the cavity, the fourth waterproof coating is spaced apart from the first waterproof coating and is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating; and
a waterproof cover “Cover” (see fig. 1) positioned over the cavity, the resistive microheater, the at least two upstream temperature detectors, and the at least two downstream temperature detectors, the waterproof cover configured to enclose a convection liquid therein (the second column of pg. 745 teaches “the working fluid is sealed within a PMMA cover (Fig.1 (c)-vi)”; fig. 1 and at least the section titled “Experimental Results” on pg. 747 teach that the working fluid is a liquid, such as water or alcohol; accordingly, the cover is at least substantially waterproof);
wherein the at least two upstream temperature detectors and the at least two downstream temperature detectors are arranged symmetrically (at least substantially symmetrically – see fig. 4a) on opposite sides of the resistive microheater;
wherein D (fig. 4a above) represents a distance, measured along an upstream-to-downstream direction (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim), from a centerline of the resistive microheater to a respective centerline of each of the at least two upstream temperature detectors and each of the at least two downstream temperature detectors;
wherein L (see fig. 4a above) represents one-half of a length of the sensing region measured along the upstream-to-downstream direction.
Wang does not explicitly teach that the planar size is 600 µm by 600 µm,
the first detector-supporting suspended beam having a width of 68 µm,
the second detector - supporting suspended beam having a width of 68 µm,
the resistive microheater has a width of 75 µm,
wherein the ratio D/L is 0.55, corresponding to a peak of a non-monotonic relationship between the ratio D/L and a temperature difference between the at least two upstream temperature detectors and the at least two downstream temperature detectors.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Wang such that the planar size is 600 µm by 600 µm, the first detector-supporting suspended beam having a width of 68 µm, the second detector - supporting suspended beam having a width of 68 µm, and the resistive microheater has a width of 75 µm, since such modifications would be mere changes in the dimensions/proportions of the apparatus for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Regarding the limitation wherein D/L is 0.55,
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, instant ¶54 states “To optimize the location of detectors, the optimal location (D/L=0.55) of the temperature detector is predicted by the compact model shown in FIG. 8.” Accordingly, the claimed ratio is predicted by a model as providing an optimization of a function, as opposed to a qualitatively new/different function relative to the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dimension D of the modified Wang such that the ratio D/L is 0.55 since such a modification would be a mere change in dimension(s)/proportion(s) of the apparatus for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Wang as modified teaches wherein the ratio D/L is 0.55, corresponding to a peak of a non-monotonic relationship between the ratio D/L and a temperature difference between the at least two upstream temperature detectors and the at least two downstream temperature detectors (since the modified Wang has the claimed ratio, the ratio corresponds to a peak of a non-monotonic relationship between the ratio D/L and a temperature difference between the at least two upstream temperature detectors and the at least two downstream temperature detectors, as broadly recited; additionally or alternatively, instant ¶54 discloses that the peak is provided by a “compact model” illustrated in instant fig. 8, meaning a compact model, which is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus, is able to be configured with respect to Wang as modified such that the ratio 0.55 of the modified Wang corresponds to a peak of a non-monotonic relationship between the ratio D/L and a temperature difference between the at least two upstream temperature detectors and the at least two downstream temperature detectors).
If Applicant argues that Wang does not explicitly teach
wherein the third waterproof coating C3 is formed along an outer periphery of (both of) the upstream temperature detectors,
wherein the fourth waterproof coating C4 is formed along and outer periphery of (both of) the downstream temperature detectors,
Qian teaches a Tumour Microwave Ablation With Film Resistor Multi-point Temperature Measuring Function (title), comprising an array of temperature detectors 6.1 all being protected with a waterproof material (fig. 2 and ¶41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Wang such that all of the temperature detectors are protected with the waterproof material as taught by Qian, so as to provide more complete protection to the temperature detectors and/or increase the number of temperature detectors for which the risk of malfunctions is reduced by waterproofing.
If Applicant also argues that Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the cover is waterproof,
[AltContent: textbox (22X)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
304
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Oh teaches a “MICROMACHINED CONVECTIVE ACCELEROMETER” (title) comprising a cover element 22X (fig. 2 above) that is configured so as to prevent a working fluid from leaking out (see pg. 5 of the translation, on the last 4 lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Wang as modified such that the cover element is configured to prevent the working fluid from leaking out, as taught by Oh, so as to prolong the life/functionality of the sensor, and/or so as to ensure/prolong the accuracy of the sensor.
Wang as modified teaches that the cover is waterproof (since Wang has been modified such that the cover prevents the working fluid, being a liquid in Wang, from leaking out).
As to claim 2, Wang teaches wherein the cavity-defining substrate is made of silicon (see fig. 1(C)-v).
As to claim 3, Wang teaches wherein the two downstream temperature detectors are selected from aluminum or polysilicon temperature detectors (at least the abstract and fig. 1 teach that the two downstream temperature detectors are made of aluminum).
As to claim 4, Wang teaches wherein the two upstream temperature detectors are selected from aluminum or polysilicon temperature detectors (at least the abstract and fig. 1 teach that the two upstream temperature detectors are made of aluminum).
As to claim 5, Wang teaches wherein the resistive microheater is a polysilicon resistive microheater (see fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Wang teaches wherein each of the first waterproof coating, the second waterproof coating, the third waterproof coating, and the fourth waterproof coating is a polymer coating (see fig. 1 above; see the cited evidentiary NPL titled “On the use of Parylene C polymer as substrate for peripheral nerve electrodes,” which teaches in the abstract and title that Parylene C a polymer; additionally, it is noted that pg. 3 of the NPL teaches that Parylene C is used as a coating; accordingly, the waterproof coating of Wang is a polymer coating).
As to claim 10, Wang teaches wherein each of the polymer coatings comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of para-xylylene polymers, chlorinated poly (para-xylylene) polymers (corresponding to the Parylene C taught by Wang), urethane, acrylic, or silicone.
As to claim 13, Wang teaches wherein the convection liquid is water (see the sections titled “Experimental Results” and “CONCLUSION” on pgs. 747-748).
As to claim 14, Wang teaches wherein the convection liquid has a normalized Rayleigh number greater than that of air (see fig. 3 and the description thereof directly below fig. 3 on pg. 746).
As to claim 15, Wang teaches wherein the ratio D/L of 0.55 is determined from a curve generated by a compact model, wherein the compact model is determined based on at least one characteristic of the convection liquid (the compact model is not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus, and the prior art ratio is capable of having been determined from such a curve), and the at least one characteristic comprises a normalized Rayleigh number (which is shown in fig. 3 and the description thereof directly below fig. 3 on pg. 746) of the convection liquid.
As to claim 16, Wang teaches wherein a selection of the convective fluid is determined at least based on the normalized Rayleigh numbers of a plurality of candidate convective fluids (the selection of the convective fluid of Wang is capable of having been determined at least based on the normalized Rayleigh numbers of a plurality of candidate convective fluids).
An alternate rejection of claim 10 is provided below in case Applicant argues that the Parylene C of Wang does not read on any of the materials recited in claim 10.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Qian and Oh as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Xing (CN 210625698 U).
As to claim 10, Wang teaches wherein each of the polymer coatings comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of para-xylylene polymers, chlorinated poly (para-xylylene) polymers (corresponding to the Parylene C taught by Wang), urethane, acrylic, or silicone.
If Applicant argues that the Parylene C of Wang does not read on the claimed chlorinated poly (para-xylylene) polymers,
Xing teaches the concept of a corrosion-resistant sensor chip provided with a waterproof coating 2, which is an acrylic waterproof coating (¶26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Wang as modified to use acrylic as the polymer coating, as taught by Xing, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one waterproof coating for another for the predictable result that the elements of the sensor covered by the coating are still successfully protected with a waterproof coating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 13 that Wang does not teach wherein D/L = 0.55.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Wang was modified via a change in dimensions/size to achieve the claimed ratio.
Applicant argues on pg. 13 that the Office characterized the ratio as an optimization of a known dimensional parameter.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner pointed out that Applicant characterized the ratio as an optimization of a known dimensional parameter (see instant ¶54). The Examiner merely pointed out how Applicant characterized the ratio.
Applicant argues on pgs. 13-14 that
“the claimed ratio is not merely an arbitrary numerical selection or the result of simple proportional scaling. As shown in FIG. 8 of the present application, the temperature-difference response does not increase or decrease monotonically as the detector position is varied. Rather, the response increases as D/L approaches approximately 0.55, reaches a peak at D/L=0.55, and then decreases as D/L is further increased.
Even assuming that detector position would have been recognized generally as a design parameter, Wang does not disclose this non-monotonic dependence of the temperature-difference response on D/L, does not identify an intermediate peak, and does not provide guidance toward selecting D/L=0.55. The mere depiction of D and L as geometric parameters in Wang therefore does not establish that the presently claimed peak location would have been predictable through routine dimensional adjustment.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence that the claimed ratio results in a claimed device that performs differently than the prior art device. As admitted in instant ¶54, the claimed ratio merely optimizes sensor performance, which does not result in a qualitatively new function/phenomenon. Wang inherently has some ratio of D/L, and Applicant’s ratio of 0.55 is based on a “compact model” (see ¶54 and fig. 8 of the instant application), which is not part of the apparatus and is merely a model/prediction. In the case of Wang, a “compact model” is similarly capable of being generated such that a ratio of 0.55 for Wang corresponds to a peak of a non-monotonic relationship between the ratio D/L and a temperature difference (as determined by the model) between the at least two upstream temperature detectors and the at least two downstream temperature detectors. Accordingly, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to modify Wang or Wang as modified to have the claimed ratio.
Applicant argues on pg. 14 that Qian, Oh and Xing do not remedy the alleged deficiency of Wang above, since they allegedly do not teach the claimed ratio or the non-monotonic position relationship.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for at least the reasons above and because claim 1 is properly rejected.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Qian, Oh and Xing were not relied on for the claimed ratio or non-monotonic relationship.
Applicant argues on pg. 15 that “For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that amended Claim 1 is neither anticipated by Wang nor rendered obvious by Wang alone or in combination with Qian, Oh, or Xing. Claims 2-5, 9-10, and 13-16 depend from amended Claim 1 and recite additional limitations and are therefore likewise in proper condition for allowance.”
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for at least the reasons given above by the Examiner. Additionally, all the pending elected claims are properly rejected.
Applicant argues on pg. 16 that an IDS has been filed with a complete copy of reference EP 1615038 A3.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since no such IDS was received.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
