DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 December 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-18, 20, 23, 27-30, 32 & 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 8,564,169) in view of Bensoussan et al. (US Pat.Pub.2013/ 0207248).
Regarding claim 16, Sano teaches an electret device (electrostatic induction generator) 100 comprising:
a package member (first substrate) 10;
a lid member (second substrate) 20; and
a electret element (electret electrode finger) 14, wherein the lid member 20 seals the package member 10 to thereby form a closed space (not numbered),
the electret element 10 is placed in the closed space (c.5:55-67; Fig.5B).
PNG
media_image1.png
287
319
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sano does not teach a hydrogen getter is included in at least part of an inside of the closed space.
But, Bensoussan teaches a device comprising: a package member (hermetic package) 300; a lid member (cap) 200; and a micro-electromechanical element 10, wherein the lid member 200 seals the package member 300 to thereby form a closed space (not numbered), the element 10 is placed in the closed space, and a hydrogen getter 40 is included in at least part of an inside of the closed space, to provide resistance to ionizing radiation and reducing oxidation of components encapsulated in the package (abstract; ¶[0045]-¶[0046]; ¶[0049]- ¶[0052]; Fig.4).
PNG
media_image2.png
230
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Sano with a hydrogen getter is included in at least part of an inside of the closed space since Bensoussan teaches the getter would have provided resistance to ionizing radiation and reduced oxidation of components encapsulated in the package.
Regarding claim 17, in Bensoussan the hydrogen getter 40 is placed on at least part of the package member 300 (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 18, in Bensoussan the hydrogen getter 40 is placed on at least part of the lid member (cap) 200.
Regarding claim 20, the electret element has a movable weight, and the hydrogen getter is placed at a region other than a portion facing a region where the weight is movable.
Regarding claim 27, Sano teaches the package member (first substrate) 10 is made of glass or silicon (c.4:29-30). Similarly, Bensoussan’s package member comprises ceramic material (¶[0017]).
Regarding claim 28, Sano intrinsically teaches a method of manufacturing an electret device including a package member (first substrate) 10, a lid member (second substrate) 20, and an electret element (electret electrode finger) 14, the method comprising: a step of preparing the package member 10; a step of placing the electret element 14 in the package member; and a step of sealing the package member with the lid member 20 to thereby form a closed space (c.5:55-67; Fig.5B).
Sano does not teach the method comprises “a step of providing a hydrogen getter on at least part of the package member or the lid member forming an inner wall of the closed space or the electret element before the sealing step.”
But, Bensoussan intrinsically teaches a method of manufacturing a device including a step of preparing a package member (hermetic package) 300; a step of placing a micro-electromechanical element 10 in the package member, and a step of sealing the package member with a lid member (cap) 200 to thereby form a closed space (¶[0049]; Figs.2A-4); and a further step of providing a hydrogen getter 40 on at least part of the package member 300 or the lid member 200 forming an inner wall of the closed space or the electret element before the sealing step to provide resistance to ionizing radiation and reduce oxidation of components encapsulated in the package (abstract; ¶[0045]-¶[0052]; Fig.4)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to manufacture Sano’s device with a step of providing a hydrogen getter since Bensoussan teaches this would have provided resistance to ionizing radiation and reduced oxidation of components encapsulated in the package.
Regarding claim 23, in the combination, Bensoussan’s hydrogen getter 40 has a thickness in a range smaller than a distance between the package member and the element of Sano in order to allow for Sano’s movable electrode to move.
Regarding claim 29, in Bensoussan the hydrogen getter 40 is placed on at least part of the package member 300 (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 30, in Bensoussan the hydrogen getter 40 is placed on at least part of the lid member (cap) 200.
Regarding claim 32, in Bensoussan the sealing is performed under vacuum (¶[0052]).
Regarding claim 34, Sano teaches the package member (first substrate) 10 is made of glass or silicon (c.4:29-30). Similarly, Bensoussan’s package member comprises ceramic material (¶[0017]).
Claims 19 & 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano and Bensoussan as applied to claims 16 & 28, respectively, further in view of Foust et al. (US 7,534,635).
Sano and Bensoussan substantially teach the invention but does not teach the hydrogen getter is “placed on at least part of the electret element” or method therefor.
But, Foust teaches a getter for hermetically sealed packaging for MEMS devices (e.g., OLED 10) including a getter precursor 28 disposed within an interior region of the package including, e.g., on cathode and anode surfaces 14, 12 of the device (abstract; c.4:29-61; Fig.1). This provides an improved getter material and method for incorporation of the getter into the package (c.1:54-55).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to place the hydrogen getter material of Sano and Bensoussan on at least part of the electret element since Foust teaches this would have provided an improved getter material and method for incorporation of the getter into the package.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano and Bensoussan as applied to claim 28, further in view of Yang (US 8,569,180).
Sano and Bensoussan substantially teach the invention including a step of sealing the package member with the lid, but do not further teach the sealing is performed in a presence of an inert gas.
But, Yang teaches a CMOS fabrication method including the step of sealing integrated circuits in a cavity formed with a void volume of inert gas to provide a hermetic inert environment that shields the sensitive circuits from EM interference, noise, moisture, gas, and corrosion from the outside environment (abstract; c.3:53-55).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Sano and Bensoussan with a step of sealing the package member with the lid in a presence of an inert gas since Yang teaches the inert gas would have provided a hermetic inert environment that shielded the sensitive circuits from EM interference, noise, moisture, gas, and corrosion from the outside environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 35 is allowed. The prior art of record does not further teach the claimed electret including, “the electret element has a movable weight, and the hydrogen getter is placed at a region other than a portion facing a region where the weight is movable.”
Claims 21-22 & 24-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not further teach the claimed electret including, “the electret element has a movable weight, and the hydrogen getter is placed at a region other than a portion facing a region where the weight is movable” (claims 21-22).
This determination is based on keyword and citation searches performed in a limited number of subclasses. Artificial intelligence search tools were employed. Nomenclature in the art is inconsistent. Keyword searches in the foreign art was limited to the text of the abstract. For these reasons, the scope of the search was necessarily truncated and relevant art classified outside the subclasses searched and/or using different terminology or keywords may not have been reviewed. See the Search Notes for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 16-18, 20, 23, 27-30, 32 & 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sano and Bensoussan, Applicant notes Sano teaches sealing the electrostatic induction device in vacuo and that Sano is silent about the problem of charge degradation of an electret caused by hydrogen atoms. Applicant argues the secondary reference Bensoussan “is silent about an electret and specifically does not disclose or suggest any cause of charge degradation in an electret, especially charge degradation caused by hydrogen atoms” and that therefore the combination with Sano does not teach “a hydrogen getter is included in at least part of an inside of a closed space of an electret” recited in claims 16 & 28 (Response, p.7). This is not persuasive.
Applicant seems to assume Sano’s device sealed in vacuo means no air or gas (presumably including hydrogen atoms) is present. But, this presumes an ideal or perfect vacuum---i.e., one without any air and/or gas---which does not exist. Further, getters are used to generate vacuums or partial vacuums See, e.g., Jain (US Pat.Pub.2022/0336251; ¶[0195]). Thus, the fact that Sano may teach a vacuum does not preclude or teach away from use of Bensoussan’s getter. Moreover, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage (i.e., reduction of charge degradation from hydrogen) which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Per MPEP 2144 (IV), the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Rather, the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In this case, Bensoussan teaches a hydrogen getter 40 included in at least part of an inside of the closed space, to provide resistance to ionizing radiation and reducing oxidation of components encapsulated in the package (abstract; ¶[0045]-¶[0046]; ¶[0049]-¶[0052]; Fig.4). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Sano with a hydrogen getter is included in at least part of an inside of the closed space since Bensoussan teaches the getter would have provided resistance to ionizing radiation and reduced oxidation of components encapsulated in the package.
Similarly, regarding rejections to dependent claims 19, 31 & 33 involving tertiary art Foust or Yang, it is noted obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Foust teaches a getter for hermetically sealed packaging for MEMS devices (e.g., OLED 10) including a getter precursor 28 disposed within an interior region of the package including, e.g., on cathode and anode surfaces 14, 12 of the device (abstract; c.4:29-61; Fig.1). This provides an improved getter material and method for incorporation of the getter into the package (c.1:54-55). Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to place the hydrogen getter material of Sano and Bensoussan on at least part of the electret element since Foust teaches this would have provided an improved getter material and method for incorporation of the getter into the package. Yang teaches a CMOS fabrication method including the step of sealing integrated circuits in a cavity formed with a void volume of inert gas to provide a hermetic inert environment that shields the sensitive circuits from EM interference, noise, moisture, gas, and corrosion from the outside environment (abstract; c.3:53-55). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Sano and Bensoussan with a step of sealing the package member with the lid in a presence of an inert gas since Yang teaches the inert gas would have provided a hermetic inert environment that shielded the sensitive circuits from EM interference, noise, moisture, gas, and corrosion from the outside environment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights