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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
One or more bonding pads (claim 18)
One or more printed conductors (claim 20)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 cavity C (fig. 1 above) 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 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) 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;
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) 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) 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).
As to claim 2, Wang teaches wherein the cavity is a silicon cavity (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 6, Wang teaches wherein the cavity is coupled to a substrate (PCB board – fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Wang teaches wherein the waterproof coating is a polymer coating (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 the polymer coating is one or more 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 11, Wang teaches wherein each of the at least two upstream temperature detectors is (at least substantially) equidistant from the resistive microheater (see fig. 4a).
As to claim 12, Wang teaches wherein each of the at least two downstream temperature detectors is (at least substantially) equidistant from the resistive microheater (see fig. 4a).
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 a ratio of a position of the temperature detector (e.g., Ru1) to a width of the thermal accelerometer (being the inherent ratio of the position of the temperature detector to a width of the thermal accelerometer – see fig. 4a) is determined by a curve of a compact model, wherein the compact model is determined by at least one of characteristics of the convective 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 by such a curve), and the characteristics of the convective liquid comprise at least its normalized Rayleigh number (which is shown in fig. 3 and the description thereof directly below fig. 3 on pg. 746).
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).
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.
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 the polymer coating is one or more 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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
As to claim 17, Wang teaches a ratio (inherent ratio) of the position of the temperature detector to the width of the thermal accelerometer.
Wang does not teach wherein the ratio is 0.55 so as to maximize a temperature difference between the upstream and 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. In this case, the claimed position is determined by a dimension D (fig. 4), and the width of the thermal accelerometer is determined by dimension L (¶54). There is no persuasive evidence of record to show that a device having the claimed relative dimensions would perform differently than 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 to have a position of the temperature detector set by dimension D and a width of the accelerometer set by a dimension L such that the ratio of the position of the temperature detector to the width of the thermal accelerometer is 0.55 since such a modification would be a mere change in the dimension(s)/proportions(s) of the apparatus for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Wang as modified teaches the ratio is 0.55 so as to maximize a temperature difference between the upstream and downstream temperature detectors (the phrase “so as to maximize a temperature difference between the upstream and downstream temperature detectors” is directed to an intended use of the apparatus, and the ratio of the modified Wang is capable of maximizing a temperature difference between the upstream and downstream temperature detectors in comparison to temperature differences produced by other ratios).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wang or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang in view of Lin (US 20110036168 A1).
As to claim 18, Wang teaches one or more bonding pads “PAD” (fig. 1) provided on the substrate; and
one or more metal bonding wires “Bonding Wire” (fig. 1) connected to the one or more bonding pads and having a fifth waterproof coating C5 (fig. 1 above) formed thereon.
If Applicant argues that the one or more bonding wires of Wang is/are not metal,
Lin teaches the use of gold bonding wires 801-806 (¶78 and fig. 28).
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 one or more bonding wires is/are made of gold as taught by Lin since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one bonding wire material for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lin as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Nakano et al. (US 20170345987 A1, hereinafter Nakano).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 4(a) of Wang)]
PNG
media_image2.png
466
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 19, Wang teaches the limitations of the claim except a first aluminum wire connected to the resistive microheater and covered by the second waterproof coating;
at least one second aluminum wire connected to the upstream temperature detectors and covered by the third waterproof coating, wherein the third waterproof coating covering the second aluminum wire is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating covering the first aluminum wire; and
at least one third aluminum wire connected to the downstream temperature detectors and covered by the fourth waterproof coating, wherein the fourth waterproof coating covering the third aluminum wire is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating covering the first aluminum wire and from the third waterproof coating covering the second aluminum wire (note that fig. 4a of Wang above shows elements Ru1-Ru2, Rh and Rd1-Rd2, but Wang is silent as to wires leading to/from these elements).
Nakano teaches a sensor device (title), wherein “electrodes are taken out from the heat generator 6, the temperature sensors 7 to 12, and the resistors 15 to 17 by, for example, aluminum wiring, connected to a pad unit 14” (see ¶25 and fig. 1; ¶25 teaches wherein elements 7-17 are temperature sensors).
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 electrodes are taken out from the heat generator and the temperature sensors by aluminum wiring, as taught by Nakano, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of electrically connecting to the heat generator and temperature sensors for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Wang as modified teaches a first aluminum wire (in view of Nakano) connected to the resistive microheater and covered by the second waterproof coating (due to the conformal water-proof coating in Wang’s abstract);
at least one second aluminum wire (in view of Nakano) connected to the upstream temperature detectors and covered by the third waterproof coating (due to the conformal water-proof coating in Wang’s abstract), wherein the third waterproof coating covering the second aluminum wire is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating covering the first aluminum wire; and
at least one third aluminum wire (in view of Nakano) connected to the downstream temperature detectors and covered by the fourth waterproof coating (due to the conformal water-proof coating in Wang’s abstract), wherein the fourth waterproof coating covering the third aluminum wire is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating covering the first aluminum wire and from the third waterproof coating covering the second aluminum wire
As to claim 20, Wang teaches wherein the substrate further comprises one or more printed conductors (comprised by the PCB substrate in fig. 1) with the one or more metal bonding wires (in view of Lin) providing an interconnection between the one or more bonding pads “PAD” (Wang) and the one or more printed conductors.
As to claim 21, Wang as modified teaches wherein the fifth waterproof coating C5 (Wang) is formed along an outer periphery of the one or more metal bonding wires and is connected to the first waterproof coating C1 (Wang) formed on the cavity of the substrate (see fig. 1 of Wang).
Alternative rejections of claims 20-21 are provided below, in case Applicant argues that Wang’s bonding wire does not provide a connection with a printed conductor of the PCB substrate of Wang.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lin and Nakano as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of Jones et al. (US 8146285 B1, hereinafter Jones).
As to claim 20, Wang teaches wherein the substrate further comprises one or more printed conductors (comprised by the PCB substrate in fig. 1) with the one or more metal bonding wires (in view of Lin) providing an interconnection between the one or more bonding pads “PAD” (Wang) and the one or more printed conductors.
If Applicant argues that Wang’s bonding wire does not provide a connection with a printed conductor of the PCB substrate of Wang,
Jones teaches a thermal accelerometer 2125 provided on a small printed circuit board providing all I/O connections for easy incorporation into a further device 100 (col. 4 lines 36-42).
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 printed circuit board provides all I/O connections for easy incorporation of the accelerometer into a further device as taught by Jones so as to facilitate the integration of the accelerometer into a further device (col. 4 lines 36-42 in Jones).
Wang as modified teaches wherein the substrate further comprises one or more printed conductors (comprised by the PCB substrate of the modified Wang) with the one or more metal bonding wires (in view of Lin) providing an interconnection between the one or more bonding pads “PAD” (Wang) and the one or more printed conductors (for facilitating the integration of the accelerometer with a further device, in view of Jones).
As to claim 21, Wang as modified teaches wherein the fifth waterproof coating C5 (Wang) is formed along an outer periphery of the one or more metal bonding wires and is connected to the first waterproof coating C1 (Wang) formed on the cavity of the substrate (see fig. 1 of Wang).
Alternative rejections of claims 1-6 and 9-21 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) 1-6 and 9-16 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, Wang2 teaches a CMOS-based MEMS thermal accelerometer (title) comprising:
a cavity C (fig. 1 above) 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 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) 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;
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) 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) 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).
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_image3.png
304
546
media_image3.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 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 is a silicon cavity (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 6, Wang teaches wherein the cavity is coupled to a substrate (PCB board – fig. 1).
As to claim 9, Wang teaches wherein the waterproof coating is a polymer coating (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 the polymer coating is one or more 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 11, Wang teaches wherein each of the at least two upstream temperature detectors is (at least substantially) equidistant from the resistive microheater (see fig. 4a).
As to claim 12, Wang teaches wherein each of the at least two downstream temperature detectors is (at least substantially) equidistant from the resistive microheater (see fig. 4a).
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 a ratio of a position of the temperature detector (e.g., Ru1) to a width of the thermal accelerometer (being the inherent ratio of the position of the temperature detector to a width of the thermal accelerometer – see fig. 4a) is determined by a curve of a compact model, wherein the compact model is determined by at least one of characteristics of the convective 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 by such a curve), and the characteristics of the convective liquid comprise at least its normalized Rayleigh number (which is shown in fig. 3 and the description thereof directly below fig. 3 on pg. 746).
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 the polymer coating is one or more 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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Qian and Oh.
As to claim 17, Wang teaches a ratio (inherent ratio) of the position of the temperature detector to the width of the thermal accelerometer.
Wang does not teach wherein the ratio is 0.55 so as to maximize a temperature difference between the upstream and 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. In this case, the claimed position is determined by a dimension D (fig. 4), and the width of the thermal accelerometer is determined by dimension L (¶54). There is no persuasive evidence of record to show that a device having the claimed relative dimensions would perform differently than 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 as modified to have a position of the temperature detector set by dimension D and a width of the accelerometer set by a dimension L such that the ratio of the position of the temperature detector to the width of the thermal accelerometer is 0.55 since such a modification would be a mere change in the dimension(s)/proportions(s) of the apparatus for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Wang as modified teaches the ratio is 0.55 so as to maximize a temperature difference between the upstream and downstream temperature detectors (the phrase “so as to maximize a temperature difference between the upstream and downstream temperature detectors” is directed to an intended use of the apparatus, and the ratio of the modified Wang is capable of maximizing a temperature difference between the upstream and downstream temperature detectors in comparison to temperature differences produced by other ratios).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Qian and Oh as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Lin (US 20110036168 A1).
As to claim 18, Wang teaches one or more bonding pads “PAD” (fig. 1) provided on the substrate; and
one or more metal bonding wires “Bonding Wire” (fig. 1) connected to the one or more bonding pads and having a fifth waterproof coating C5 (fig. 1 above) formed thereon.
If Applicant argues that the one or more bonding wires of Wang is/are not metal,
Lin teaches the use of gold bonding wires 801-806 (¶78 and fig. 28).
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 one or more bonding wires is/are made of gold as taught by Lin since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one bonding wire material for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Qian, Oh and Lin as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Nakano et al. (US 20170345987 A1, hereinafter Nakano).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 4(a) of Wang)]
PNG
media_image2.png
466
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 19, Wang teaches the limitations of the claim except a first aluminum wire connected to the resistive microheater and covered by the second waterproof coating;
at least one second aluminum wire connected to the upstream temperature detectors and covered by the third waterproof coating, wherein the third waterproof coating covering the second aluminum wire is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating covering the first aluminum wire; and
at least one third aluminum wire connected to the downstream temperature detectors and covered by the fourth waterproof coating, wherein the fourth waterproof coating covering the third aluminum wire is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating covering the first aluminum wire and from the third waterproof coating covering the second aluminum wire (note that fig. 4a of Wang above shows elements Ru1-Ru2, Rh and Rd1-Rd2, but Wang is silent as to wires leading to/from these elements).
Nakano teaches a sensor device (title), wherein “electrodes are taken out from the heat generator 6, the temperature sensors 7 to 12, and the resistors 15 to 17 by, for example, aluminum wiring, connected to a pad unit 14” (see ¶25 and fig. 1; ¶25 teaches wherein elements 7-17 are temperature sensors).
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 electrodes are taken out from the heat generator and the temperature sensors by aluminum wiring, as taught by Nakano, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of electrically connecting to the heat generator and temperature sensors for another for the predictable result that acceleration is still successfully detected.
Wang as modified teaches a first aluminum wire (in view of Nakano) connected to the resistive microheater and covered by the second waterproof coating (due to the conformal water-proof coating in Wang’s abstract);
at least one second aluminum wire (in view of Nakano) connected to the upstream temperature detectors and covered by the third waterproof coating (due to the conformal water-proof coating in Wang’s abstract), wherein the third waterproof coating covering the second aluminum wire is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating covering the first aluminum wire; and
at least one third aluminum wire (in view of Nakano) connected to the downstream temperature detectors and covered by the fourth waterproof coating (due to the conformal water-proof coating in Wang’s abstract), wherein the fourth waterproof coating covering the third aluminum wire is spaced apart from the second waterproof coating covering the first aluminum wire and from the third waterproof coating covering the second aluminum wire
As to claim 20, Wang teaches wherein the substrate further comprises one or more printed conductors (comprised by the PCB substrate in fig. 1) with the one or more metal bonding wires (in view of Lin) providing an interconnection between the one or more bonding pads “PAD” (Wang) and the one or more printed conductors.
As to claim 21, Wang as modified teaches wherein the fifth waterproof coating C5 (Wang) is formed along an outer periphery of the one or more metal bonding wires and is connected to the first waterproof coating C1 (Wang) formed on the cavity of the substrate (see fig. 1 of Wang).
Alternative rejections of claims 20-21 are provided below, in case Applicant argues that Wang’s bonding wire does not provide a connection with a printed conductor of the PCB substrate of Wang.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Qian, Oh, Lin and Nakano as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of Jones et al. (US 8146285 B1, hereinafter Jones).
As to claim 20, Wang teaches wherein the substrate further comprises one or more printed conductors (comprised by the PCB substrate in fig. 1) with the one or more metal bonding wires (in view of Lin) providing an interconnection between the one or more bonding pads “PAD” (Wang) and the one or more printed conductors.
If Applicant argues that Wang’s bonding wire does not provide a connection with a printed conductor of the PCB substrate of Wang,
Jones teaches a thermal accelerometer 2125 provided on a small printed circuit board providing all I/O connections for easy incorporation into a further device 100 (col. 4 lines 36-42).
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 printed circuit board provides all I/O connections for easy incorporation of the accelerometer into a further device as taught by Jones so as to facilitate the integration of the accelerometer into a further device (col. 4 lines 36-42 in Jones).
Wang as modified teaches wherein the substrate further comprises one or more printed conductors (comprised by the PCB substrate of the modified Wang) with the one or more metal bonding wires (in view of Lin) providing an interconnection between the one or more bonding pads “PAD” (Wang) and the one or more printed conductors (for facilitating the integration of the accelerometer with a further device, in view of Jones).
As to claim 21, Wang as modified teaches wherein the fifth waterproof coating C5 (Wang) is formed along an outer periphery of the one or more metal bonding wires and is connected to the first waterproof coating C1 (Wang) formed on the cavity of the substrate (see fig. 1 of Wang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 10 that “Wang does not explicitly describe the structural relationships among multiple waterproof coatings, including whether, over the cavity, such coatings are formed as separate, spatially spaced structures on different functional components. Herein, "spatially spaced" (or it is called independently separated) refers to physically discontinuous coating regions formed on different functional components (e.g., heater, detectors, interconnects/bond wires, cavity surfaces), rather than a single continuous encapsulation film that covers everything.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “such coatings are formed as separate, spatially spaced structures on different functional components. Herein, "spatially spaced" (or it is called independently separated) refers to physically discontinuous coating regions“) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 recites that the separation between coatings is above the cavity, which is taught by Wang as modified.
Applicant argues on pg. 10 that “In particular, Wang does not explicitly describe a physical configuration in which a waterproof coating formed on a resistive microheater is spaced apart from a waterproof coating formed on a cavity, or in which waterproof coatings formed on upstream and downstream temperature detectors are spaced apart from both the cavity coating and the microheater coating, as recited in amended Claim 1.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Wang does indeed teach these features, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues on pg. 11 that “Wang does not provide an explicit description of a structural arrangement in which waterproof coatings associated with different functional components are formed along respective outer peripheries of those components and are physically isolated from one another so as to define distinct coating regions.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., waterproof coatings associated with different functional components are…physically isolated from one another so as to define distinct coating regions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to Qian, Applicant argues on pg. 11 that “Qian applies a single continuous encapsulation film that covers everything to those components, which does not match the definition of "independent/spatially separated."
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., independently separated) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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). While Qian does not teach coatings spatially separated from each other (over the cavity), such a feature is taught by the combination of Wang and Qian.
Applicant argues on pgs. 11-12 that Qian teaches “an overall encapsulation approach in which different functional components are enclosed together within one bulk plastic sealing film, without any disclosure or suggestion of separate waterproof coatings formed along outer peripheries of individual components, nor any disclosure of spatial separation between coatings associated with different functional components.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., separate waterproof coatings formed along outer peripheries of individual components) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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). While Qian does not teach coatings spatially separated from each other (over the cavity), such a feature is taught by the combination of Wang and Qian.
On pg. 12 Applicant argues “In contrast, amended Claim 1 recites that waterproof coatings formed on the resistive microheater, the upstream temperature detectors, and the downstream temperature detectors are structurally distinct and spaced apart from one another, thereby defining specific physical relationships among the waterproof coatings. These claimed relationships correspond to concrete structural configurations illustrated in FIG. 2 of the present application and are different from the single bulk encapsulation disclosed in Qian.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., waterproof coatings formed on the resistive microheater, the upstream temperature detectors, and the downstream temperature detectors are structurally distinct) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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). While Qian does not teach coatings spatially separated from each other (over the cavity), such a feature is taught by the combination of Wang and Qian.
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that
“Accordingly, even when Wang is combined with Qian, the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the presently claimed configuration:
the resistive microheater including a second waterproof coating formed along an outer periphery of the resistive microheater, wherein, over the cavity, the second waterproof coating is spaced apart from the first waterproof coating;
the at least two upstream temperature detectors including a third waterproof coating formed along an outer periphery of the upstream temperature detectors, 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;
the at least two downstream temperature detectors including a fourth waterproof coating formed along an outer periphery of the downstream temperature detectors, 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.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive since all of Applicant’s previous arguments are unpersuasive, and because claim 1 is properly rejected, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues on pg. 12 that “Furthermore, none of Zhao, Dao, Xing, Qian, or Oh discloses or suggests waterproof coatings that are formed as structurally distinct and spatially separated coatings on different functional components, as recited in amended Claim 1, nor do these references remedy the deficiencies of Wang with respect to the claimed structural relationships among the waterproof coatings.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., waterproof coatings that are formed as structurally distinct…coatings on different functional components) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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). The cited feature of spatially separated coatings (over the cavity) is taught by the combination of Wang and Qian.
Applicant’s argument regarding the references remedying the alleged deficiencies of Wang is not persuasive for the reasons detailed above by the Examiner.
On pg. 13 Applicant argues that “For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that amended Claim 1 is in proper condition for allowance. Claims 2-6 and 9-21, depending on amended Claim 1, recite additional features that further distinguish Wang in view of Zhao, Dao, Xing, Qian, or Oh and therefore are also in proper condition for allowance.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since all of Applicant’s previous arguments are not persuasive, and because all pending elected claims are properly rejected.
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 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
Prosecution Insights