DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, filed 12/10/25, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered. The arguments are directed to new limitations of claim 1 which have not yet been considered. However, these new limitations do not overcome the prior art. Specifically, applicant argues that Nanataki fails to teach the second through hole(s) having a diameter of 100 μm -200 μm, and a ratio of 1:1 for the first through hole to the second.
The examiner agrees that Nanataki does not specifically teach the second through hole(s) (window 3) having a diameter of 100 μm -200 μm. However, the windows of Nanataki provide support for the fine through holes 1 in the thin ceramic plate 7. The limitations taught by Nanataki are that the fine through holes 1 have a hole-to-hole distance, after sintering, of 70μm or less. Further, the width W of the windows is limited by the hole-to-hole distance: W(mm)≥0.01/d(mm), preferably ≥0.025/d(mm), more preferably ≥0.05/d(mm). Therefore, the window width W(mm)= 0.01/0.0 7= 0.143mm = 143μm. The examples provided by Nanataki include a rectangular window of 201mm x 0.95mm. Changing the shape of the window does not produce any new or unexpected result beyond supporting the fine through holes and thin ceramic plate 7. With respect to the second through hole only being overlapped by a single first through hole: The number or through holes is limited by the size of the overall device (minimum distance between first through holes) but does not have a minimum number of through holes per window. The greater the number of through holes, the greater the air flow. This is evidenced by Tanaka (US20170234754) wherein the number of through holes (density) in the first region S1 is not limited and can be one [0062], and Moriyama et al. (US20120247647) [0034] air permeance is adjusted by the diameter of through holes and density (number).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-16, with respect to the rejection of claim 3, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Nanataki discloses a substrate comprising a first layer (ceramic plate 7) that is a ceramic insulation layer comprising a plurality of first through holes (through holes 1, Fig. 5A-5C); and a second layer (ceramic substrate 9) layered on the first layer, the second layer being a ceramic insulation layer comprising at least one second through hole (windows 3), wherein the plurality of first through holes each have a diameter of from 10 to 50 μm (Fig. 5A-5C illustrates a 40μm hole diameter; col. 8, lines 60-65), the at least one second through hole (windows 3) has a diameter larger than the diameter of each of the plurality of first through holes (see Figs. 5A-5C), and at least some of the plurality of first through holes overlap the at least one second through hole in plan view of the first layer (see Figs. 5A-5C), and the plurality of first through holes have a staggered arrangement in plan view of the first layer (see Fig. 5A).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25, with respect to the rejection of claims 17 and 18, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to new limitations including a staggered arrangement of the first through holes in plan view. This limitation is taught by Nanataki (see Fig. 5A). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nanataki et al. (US5728244).
Claim 3: Nanataki discloses a substrate comprising a first layer (ceramic plate 7) that is a ceramic insulation layer comprising a plurality of first through holes (through holes 1, Fig. 5A-5C); and a second layer (ceramic substrate 9) layered on the first layer, the second layer being a ceramic insulation layer comprising at least one second through hole (window 3), wherein the plurality of first through holes each have a diameter of from 10 to 50 μm (Fig. 5A-5C illustrates a 40μm hole diameter; col. 8, lines 60-65), the at least one second through hole (windows 3) has a diameter larger than the diameter of each of the plurality of first through holes (see Figs. 5A-5C), and at least some of the plurality of first through holes overlap the at least one second through hole in plan view of the first layer (see Figs. 5A-5C), and the plurality of first through holes have a staggered arrangement in plan view of the first layer (see Fig. 5A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanataki
Claim 4: Nanataki teaches the substrate according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the second layer comprises a plurality of second through holes including the at least one second through hole.
However, duplicating the window 3 of Nanataki produces no new or unexpected result. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an additional second through hole in order to form a unitary laminate (col. 1, lines 48-52).
Claims 1-2, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanataki in view of Tanaka (US20170234754) further in view of Moriyama et al. (US20120247647).
Claim 1: Nanataki teaches a substrate (ceramic member) comprising: a first layer (ceramic plate 7) that is a ceramic insulation layer comprising a plurality of first through holes (through holes 1, Fig. 1A-1C, 2A-2C); and a second layer (ceramic substrate 9) layered on the first layer, the second layer being a ceramic insulation layer comprising a plurality of second through holes (windows 3), wherein
the plurality of first through holes each have a diameter of from 10 to 50 μm (Fig. 5A-5C illustrates a 40μm hole diameter; col. 8, lines 60-65), the plurality of second through holes (windows 3) each have a diameter of 100μm or more and 200μm or less (see Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2C, 5A-5C), and
at least some of the plurality of first through holes overlap the at least one second through hole in plan view of the first layer (see Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2C, 3C, 5A-5C), at least some of the plurality of first through holes overlap some of the plurality of second through holes in a plan view of the first layer (see Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2C, 3C, 5A-5C),
Nanataki fails to teach the plurality of second through holes each have a diameter of 100 µm or more and 200µm or less and each of the some of the plurality of second through holes is overlapped only by a single one of the at least some of the plurality of first through holes.
However, according to Nanataki, the size of the through holes 1 is what allows or prohibits passage of a target substance and the window 3 is used to create a uniformly sintered material. Therefore, the window size and ratio of first through holes to second through holes is not limited. The window 3 is larger than the first through holes 1 and has dimensions including 201mmx .95mm (col. 9, line 15) and is limited by the hole-to-hole distance (col. 4, lines 4-25). Further, the number of through holes is limited by the size of the overall device (minimum distance between first through holes) but does not have a minimum number of through holes per window. The greater the number of through holes, the greater the air flow. This is evidenced by Tanaka wherein the number of through holes (density) in the first region S1 is not limited and can be one [0062], and Moriyama [0034] air permeance is adjusted by the diameter of through holes and density (number). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the plurality of second through holes between 100 µm and 200µm, and the second through holes only overlapped by a single first through hole in order to achieve a desired density of through holes in combination with reducing cracks in the ceramic (Nanataki col. 4, lines 4-11, 30-35).
Claim 2: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama teaches the substrate according to claim 1, wherein the first layer (ceramic plate 7) has a thickness of from 50 to 150 μm (claim 6: 100 μm or less).
Claim 5: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama teaches the substrate according to claim 1, wherein a smaller angle of angles between a line segment formed by an inner wall surface of each of the plurality of first through holes (through holes 1, at least Fig. 1B, 1C) in a cross section taken along a plane orthogonal to a surface of the first layer and a line segment formed by the surface of the first layer in the cross section is 80° or more and 90° or less (the angle formed by the through holes 1 relative to the surface of the ceramic plate 7 is 90°).
Claim 6: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama teaches the substrate according to claim 1, wherein a line connecting a center of one opening portion and a center of another opening portion of each of the plurality of first through holes is inclined with respect to a surface of the first layer by 90°±10° (the angle formed by the through holes 1 relative to the surface of the ceramic plate 7 is 90°).
Claim 7: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama teaches the substrate according to claim 1, wherein in plan view of the second layer (ceramic substrate 9), the plurality of first through holes (through holes 1) are positioned away from an outer edge of the plurality of second through hole (the outer edge of the window 3, indicated by the dotted line of Fig. 1A, 2A, 3A, 5A).
Claims 9-10, 12-13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama in view of Roelver et al. (US20160146752).
Claim 9: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama teaches the substrate according to claim 1, but fails to teach a frame portion positioned on a surface of the first layer or the second layer and surrounding the plurality of first through holes and the plurality of second through holes, and a wiring conductor positioned in an inner portion of the frame portion or on a surface of the frame portion.
However, Roelver teaches a gas sensor (detection device 100, Figs. 1, 3) including a frame (semiconductor material 132 forming the vertical wall, Figs. 1, 3) surrounding the through holes, and a wiring conductor ([0054-0055] To simplify interconnection of the temperature-control unit 140 or cap wafer heating electrode and the detection section or sensor section, the temperature-control unit 140 is connected in an electrically conductive manner to a metal layer plane on the semiconductor substrate 112 via through contacts, so-called through silicon vias (TSV), as an alternative to a wire bonding method or a use of bond wires. Therefore, the through contacts must be in an inner portion or on a surface of the vertical frame 132) positioned in an inner portion of the frame portion or on a surface of the frame portion.
Roelver teaches passage openings 136 (fine through holes) in the protective cap 130 to allow passage of a gaseous analyte while protecting the sensor ([0051]). Similarly, Nanataki teaches a ceramic member for allowing passage of a desired gas, liquid, fine particles, light or the like with fine through holes.
The nature of the problem to be solved – passing a desired fluid/gas – as well as the need to prevent passage of particles, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate lid. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Nanataki with the sensor of Roelver in order to utilize a protective cap which has no variation in hole diameter (Nanataki, col. 3, lines 54-end).
Claim 10: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama in view of Roelver teaches the substrate according to claim 9. Nanataki teaches wherein the first through holes 1 are used without a window 3 and the thin ceramic 7 is attached to the substrate 9, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the frame portion is positioned on a surface of the first layer.
Roelver teaches a gas sensor (detection device 100, Figs. 1, 3) including a frame (semiconductor material 132 forming the vertical wall, Figs. 1, 3) surrounding the through holes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the substrate of Nanataki to the frame of Roelver in order to allow passage of gas through the openings and preventing passage of liquid.
Claim 12: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama teaches the substrate according to claim 1, but fails to teach a sensor element.
However, Roelver teaches a gas sensor (detection device 100, Figs. 1, 3). Roelver teaches passage openings 136 (fine through holes) in the protective cap 130 to allow passage of a gaseous analyte while protecting the sensor ([0051]). Similarly, Nanataki teaches a ceramic member for allowing passage of a desired gas, liquid, fine particles, light or the like with fine through holes.
The nature of the problem to be solved – passing a desired fluid/gas – as well as the need to prevent passage of particles, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate lid. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama with the sensor of Roelver in order to utilize a protective cap which has no variation in hole diameter (Nanataki, col. 3, lines 54-end).
Claim 13: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama in view of Roelver teaches the substrate according to claim 10. Nanataki teaches V′/V>0.3%, where V is a volume of a space between the substrate and the sensor element, and V′ is a sum of volumes of the plurality of first through holes and the at least one second through hole. Specifically, Nanataki teaches wherein the at least one second through hole has a diameter of 100 μm or more (col. 3, lines 11-12), the first through holes have a diameter of 70 μm or less and a thickness of preferably 50μm or less, and wherein the second layer (ceramic substrate 9) is at least 80 μm, preferably at least 100 μm or more (col. 3, lines 11-13). The objective of Nanataki is to record, by passing or without passing, a gas, liquid, particles, light, or the like (col. 1, lines 14-17). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be inclined to optimize the arrangement of the through holes of the ceramic member in order to pass or prevent passing of a target: liquid, gas, particles, light. The thickness and diameter of the holes is taught to be a result-effective variable to prevent or allow passage of a target. The ranges of Nanataki overlap the claimed ranges and in order to optimize the device, a person having ordinary skill in the art would utilize the ceramic member of Nanataki to prevent or allow passage of a target and optimize the size to achieve the desired result including wherein V′/V>0.3%, where V is a volume defined by a surface of the first layer on the side of the accommodation recess and the accommodation recess, and V′ is a sum of volumes of the plurality of first through holes and the at least one second through hole.
Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama fails to teach a sensor element, wherein the sensor element is mounted on the substrate in the frame portion.
However, Roelver teaches a gas sensor (detection device 100, Figs. 1, 3) including a frame (semiconductor material 132 forming the vertical wall, Figs. 1, 3) and the sensor element mounted on the substrate 112 within the frame 132.
The nature of the problem to be solved – passing a desired fluid/gas – as well as the need to prevent passage of particles, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate lid. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Nanataki with the sensor of Roelver in order to utilize a protective cap which has no variation in hole diameter (Nanataki, col. 3, lines 54-end).
Claim 16: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama in view of Roelver teaches the substrate according to claim 12. Roelver teaches an electronic apparatus comprising the sensor device according to claim 12 (Fig. 3 shows the electrical terminals 314, therefore the device is an electronic apparatus). The nature of the problem to be solved – passing a desired fluid/gas – as well as the need to prevent passage of particles, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate lid.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama with the sensor of Roelver in order to utilize a protective cap which has no variation in hole diameter (Nanataki, col. 3, lines 54-end).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama in view of Roelver further in view of Yotsuya (US20170250118).
Claim 15: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama in view of Roelver teaches the sensor device according to claim 12. Nanataki in view of Roelver fails to teach wherein the sensor element is a gas sensor element configured to detect a property of gas.
However, Yotsuya teaches a waterproof gas sensor (electronic device 1, Fig. 1) including a pressure sensor element 3.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the pressure sensor of Yotsuya with the device of Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama in view of Roelver for the obvious benefit of preventing unintended substances (water, particles) from reaching the sensor.
Claims 17-20, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanataki in view of Roelver.
Claim 17: Nanataki teaches a package comprising: a first substrate (ceramic plate 7) comprising a sensor element; and a second substrate (ceramic substrate 9) wherein the second substrate comprises: a first layer that is a ceramic insulation layer comprising a plurality of first through holes (through holes 1, Fig. 1A-1C, 2A-2C); and a second layer layered on the first layer, the second layer being a ceramic insulation layer comprising at least one second through hole (windows 3), the plurality of first through holes each have a diameter of from 10 to 50 μm (Fig. 5A-5C illustrates a 40μm hole diameter; col. 8, lines 60-65), the at least one second through hole has a diameter larger than the diameter of each of the plurality of first through holes (see Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2C, 5A-5C), at least some of the plurality of first through holes overlap one of the at least one second through hole in plan view of the first layer (see Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2C, 3C, 5A-5C), and have a staggered arrangement in plan view of the first layer (see Fig. 5A)
Nanataki fails to teach an accommodation recess configured to accommodate the sensor element, and the second layer is located on a side of the accommodation recess.
However, Roelver teaches a gas sensor (detection device 100, Figs. 1, 3). Roelver teaches passage openings 136 (fine through holes) in the protective cap 130 to allow passage of a gaseous analyte while protecting the sensor 120 ([0051]). The sensor 120 is positioned in a recess created by the semiconductor material 132, Fig. 1. Similarly, Nanataki teaches a ceramic member for allowing passage of a desired gas, liquid, fine particles, light or the like with fine through holes. Using the device of Nanataki with the device of Roelver would place the second layer on a side of the sensor in the recess.
The nature of the problem to be solved – passing a desired fluid/gas – as well as the need to prevent passage of particles, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate lid. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Nanataki with the sensor of Roelver in order to utilize a protective cap which has no variation in hole diameter (Nanataki, col. 3, lines 54-end).
Claim 18: Nanataki teaches a substrate (ceramic member) to be mounted with a sensor element, the substrate comprising: a first layer (ceramic plate 7) that is a ceramic insulation layer comprising a plurality of first through holes (through holes 1, Fig. 1A-1C, 2A-2C); a second layer (ceramic substrate 9) layered on the first layer, the second layer being a ceramic insulation layer comprising at least one second through hole (windows 3), wherein the plurality of first through holes each have a diameter of from 10 to 50 μm (Fig. 5A-5C illustrates a 40μm hole diameter; col. 8, lines 60-65), the at least one second through hole has a diameter larger than the diameter of each of the plurality of first through holes (see Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2C, 5A-5C), and at least some of the plurality of first through holes overlap the at least one second through hole in plan view of the first layer and have a staggered arrangement in plan view of the first layer (see Figs. 5A-5C).
Nanataki fails to teach a frame portion positioned on a surface of the second layer and surrounding the plurality of first through holes and the at least one second through hole; and a wiring conductor.
However, Roelver teaches a gas sensor (detection device 100, Figs. 1, 3) including a frame (semiconductor material 132 forming the vertical wall, Figs. 1, 3) surrounding the through holes, and a wiring conductor ([0054-0055] To simplify interconnection of the temperature-control unit 140 or cap wafer heating electrode and the detection section or sensor section, the temperature-control unit 140 is connected in an electrically conductive manner to a metal layer plane on the semiconductor substrate 112 via through contacts, so-called through silicon vias (TSV), as an alternative to a wire bonding method or a use of bond wires. Therefore, the through contacts must be in an inner portion or on a surface of the vertical frame 132) positioned in an inner portion of the frame portion or on a surface of the frame portion.
The nature of the problem to be solved – passing a desired fluid/gas – as well as the need to prevent passage of particles, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate lid. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Nanataki with the sensor of Roelver in order to utilize a protective cap which has no variation in hole diameter (Nanataki, col. 3, lines 54-end).
Claim 19: Nanataki in view of Roelver teaches the package according to claim 17. Nanataki fails to teach a sensor element.
However, Roelver teaches a sensor element (sensor element 120).
The nature of the problem to be solved – passing a desired fluid/gas – as well as the need to prevent passage of particles, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate lid. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Nanataki with the sensor of Roelver in order to utilize a protective cap which has no variation in hole diameter (Nanataki, col. 3, lines 54-end).
Claim 20: Nanataki in view of Roelver teaches the substrate according to claim 18. Nanataki fails to teach a sensor element.
However, Roelver teaches a sensor element (sensor element 120).
The nature of the problem to be solved – passing a desired fluid/gas – as well as the need to prevent passage of particles, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate lid. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Nanataki with the sensor of Roelver in order to utilize a protective cap which has no variation in hole diameter (Nanataki, col. 3, lines 54-end).
Claim 24: Nanataki in view of Roelver teaches the sensor device according to claim 19. Roelver teaches an electronic apparatus (Fig. 3 shows the electrical terminals 314, therefore the device is an electronic apparatus).
The nature of the problem to be solved – passing a desired fluid/gas – as well as the need to prevent passage of particles, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate lid. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Nanataki with the sensor of Roelver in order to utilize a protective cap which has no variation in hole diameter (Nanataki, col. 3, lines 54-end).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama in view of Roelver further in view of Anderson et al. (US20190250135).
Claim 11: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama teaches the substrate according to claim 1. Nanataki teaches wherein the at least one second through hole has a diameter of 100 μm or more (col. 3, lines 11-12), the first through holes have a diameter of 70 μm or less and a thickness of preferably 50μm or less, and wherein the second layer (ceramic substrate 9) is at least 80 μm, preferably at least 100 μm or more (col. 3, lines 11-13). The objective of Nanataki is to record, by passing or without passing, a gas, liquid, particles, light, or the like (col. 1, lines 14-17). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be inclined to optimize the arrangement of the through holes of the ceramic member in order to pass or prevent passing of a target: liquid, gas, particles, light. The thickness and diameter of the holes is taught to be a result-effective variable to prevent or allow passage of a target. The ranges of Nanataki overlap the claimed ranges and in order to optimize the device, a person having ordinary skill in the art would utilize the ceramic member of Nanataki to prevent or allow passage of a target and optimize the size to achieve the desired result including wherein V′/V≥0.05%, where V is a volume defined by a surface of the first layer on the side of the accommodation recess and the accommodation recess, and V′ is a sum of volumes of the plurality of first through holes and the at least one second through hole.
Nanataki fails to teach the substrate of claim 1 serving as a lid body; and a wiring board comprising an accommodation recess and wiring, the accommodation recess being configured to accommodate a sensor element, wherein the first layer is located on a side of the accommodation recess.
However, Roelver teaches a gas sensor (detection device 100, Figs. 1, 3) including a frame (semiconductor material 132 forming the vertical wall, Figs. 1, 3), and a wiring conductor ([0054-0055] To simplify interconnection of the temperature-control unit 140 or cap wafer heating electrode and the detection section or sensor section, the temperature-control unit 140 is connected in an electrically conductive manner to a metal layer plane on the semiconductor substrate 112 via through contacts, so-called through silicon vias (TSV), as an alternative to a wire bonding method or a use of bond wires. Therefore, the through contacts must be in an inner portion or on a surface of the vertical frame 132) positioned in an inner portion of the frame portion or on a surface of the frame portion.
The nature of the problem to be solved – passing a desired fluid/gas – as well as the need to prevent passage of particles, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate lid. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Nanataki with the sensor of Roelver in order to utilize a protective cap which has no variation in hole diameter (Nanataki, col. 3, lines 54-end).
Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama in view of Roelver fails to teach an accommodation recess.
However, Anderson teaches a gas sensor wherein the sensing element 1, Fig. 2, is positioned in an accommodation recess (recess 21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a recess, as taught by Anderson, with the device of Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama in view of Roelver in order to reduce thermal flow from the sensing element to an adjacent filter (Anderson [0035).
Claim 14: Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama in view of Roelver further in view of Anderson teaches a sensor device comprising: the package according to claim 11. Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama fails to teach a sensor element.
However, Roelver teaches a sensor element (sensor element 120).
The nature of the problem to be solved – passing a desired fluid/gas – as well as the need to prevent passage of particles, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate lid. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Nanataki in view of Tanaka further in view of Moriyama with the sensor of Roelver in order to utilize a protective cap which has no variation in hole diameter (Nanataki, col. 3, lines 54-end)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanataki in view of Roelver further in view of Anderson et al. (US20190250135).
Claim 22: Nanataki in view of Roelver teaches the sensor device according to claim 20, but fails to teach a sealing member between the substrate and the sensor element, the sealing member reducing a volume of a space communicating with the plurality of first through holes.
However, Anderson teaches a sealing member (adhesive 5) between a substrate (substrate 2) and the sensor element (sensing element 1), the sealing member (adhesive 5) reducing the volume of space communicating with the plurality of holes (the adhesive of Fig. 1 illustrates a thicker layer [0062-0064] versus Fig. 2 wherein the adhesive is thinner and illustrates a change in volume of the cavity 6.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the sealing member as taught by Anderson with the device of Nanataki in view of Roelver in order to establish a sufficient thickness in order to form a cavity (Anderson [0062]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanataki in view of Roelver further in view of Ali et al. (US20180202958).
Claim 21: Nanataki in view of Roelver teaches the sensor device according to claim 20, but fails to teach wherein the sensor element is flip-chip connected to the substrate.
However, Ali teaches a gas sensor (Fig. 6) which uses flip chip bonding to connect a sensor 6 to a substrate (PCB 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaching of Ali with the device of Nanataki in view of Roelver for the obvious benefit of electrically connecting the gas sensor to the substrate.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanataki in view of Roelver further in view of applicant-cited Park et al. (US20150285772).
Claim 23: Nanataki in view of Roelver teaches the sensor device according to claim 20, but fails to teach wherein the sensor element is a gas sensor element, the gas sensor element comprises a gas sensing portion protruding toward the substrate, and the gas sensing portion is accommodated in the at least one second through hole.
However, Park teaches a sensor element (sensing material 420) which protrudes into and is accommodated in a second through hole below the through holes (mesh 1051), see Fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Park with the device of Nanataki in view of Roelver in order to improve response and sensitivity of the device (Park [0057]).
However, Anderson teaches that the distance between the gas sensor 1 and the filter 4 must be of a sufficient thickness in order to form a cavity and establish a distance between the sensor 1 and filter 4 [0062, 0064]. Therefore, the combination of Anderson with the device of Nanataki in view or Roelver with Anderson would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to establish a distance between the sensor and filter such that the cavity is sufficient and the distance between the sensor 1 and filter 4 would optimize the function of the device.
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 JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 3/25/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855