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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-11, 14-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (PGPub No. 20040118214) in further view of Jo (US Patent No. 11131568).
Regarding claim 1, McDonald teaches a gas-permeable package lid of a chip package structure, applied to the chip package structure, the gas-permeable package lid of the chip package structure comprising: a lid body, integrally formed with an encapsulation material, and having a body portion and a plurality of anchors (Fig. 1 and [0022-23] point to a pressure sensor package comprising a cap 22 (lid body; body portion) located on cap surface 20.); an air hole, penetrating through the body portion of the lid body (Fig. 1 points to an opening 25 (air hole).); and a hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane, bonded to the lid body, and having a shielding part shielding the air hole and an embedded part embedded in the lid body, (Fig. 1, [0024], and [0026] point to a membrane 24 comprising an exposed portion (shielding part) spanning the opening 25 (air hole), and sides 27 (embedded part) formed within the cap 22.).
McDonald alone fails to teach a lid body having a plurality of anchors, wherein, the anchors are respectively located in the recesses, and wherein the embedded part of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane has an upper surface and a lower surface, the upper surface and the lower surface respectively have a plurality of recesses, wherein, the anchors are respectively located in the recesses.
McDonald in combination with Jo teaches a lid body having a plurality of anchors, wherein, the anchors are respectively located in the recesses, and wherein the embedded part of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane has an upper surface and a lower surface, the upper surface and the lower surface respectively have a plurality of recesses, wherein, the anchors are respectively located in the recesses (Fig. 1 of McDonald points to the membrane 24 formed partially within the cap 22 (lid body). Fig. 4D and Col. 5, lines 11-16 of Jo point to a cover 300 comprising rough surfaces 300a-300b (plurality of anchors) which are bonded to a waterproof film 400 (plurality of recesses) made of PTFE.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McDonald and Jo, such that the lid body further comprises a plurality of anchors in order to create great surface roughness and by extension an increased adhesive force between the lid body and the membrane.
Regarding claim 2, McDonald teaches wherein the chip package structure further comprises a base and a chip disposed on the base (Fig. 1 and [0021] point to a pressure sensor 4 (chip) mounted to a bottom recess 8 of the durable housing 2 (base).), the air hole is located above the chip (Fig. 1 points to opening 25 (air hole).), and the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane is suspended above the chip (Id. points to membrane 24.).
Regarding claim 3, McDonald teaches wherein the chip is a gas sensing chip (Fig. 1 points to pressure sensor 4 (chip). However, [0009] further points to sensors used in other applications, including gaseous environmental monitors. It is thus considered obvious that the pressure sensing chip disclosed could alternatively be replaced with a gas sensing chip.).
Regarding claim 4, McDonald teaches wherein, the flow holes penetrate through the embedded part of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane (Fig. 1 and [0023] point to the membrane 24, and by extension sides 27 (embedded part), being porous (a plurality of flow holes).).
McDonald fails to teach the lid body further comprises a plurality of notch-anchored portions, the notch-anchored portions are respectively located in the flow holes of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane
Jo teaches the lid body further comprises a plurality of notch-anchored portions, the notch-anchored portions are respectively located in the flow holes of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane (Fig. 4D points to the cover 300 comprising rough surface(s) (plurality of notch-anchored portions) which are used to bond said cover to the waterproof film 400 (hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McDonald and Jo, such that the lid body further comprises a plurality of notch-anchored portions in order to create great surface roughness and by extension an increased adhesive force between the lid body and the membrane.
Regarding claim 5, McDonald teaches wherein the chip package structure further comprises a base and a chip disposed on the base (Fig. 1 and [0021] point to a pressure sensor 4 (chip) mounted to a bottom recess 8 of the durable housing 2 (base).), the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane is suspended above the chip, a surface of the shielding part facing the chip and a surface of the shielding part facing away from the chip of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane are not covered by the lid body (Fig. 1 points to membrane 24 comprising an exposed portion (shielding part) spanning the opening 25.).
Regarding claim 6, McDonald teaches wherein the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane further comprises a plurality of flow holes penetrating through the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane, the flow holes are adjacent to an edge of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane and are embedded in the lid body (Fig. 1 and [0023] point to the membrane 24, and by extension sides 27 (embedded part), being porous (a plurality of flow holes).).
Regarding claim 7, McDonald teaches wherein the flow holes are located on two opposite sides of the air hole (Fig. 1 and [0023] point to the membrane 24, and by extension sides 27 (opposite sides of the air hole), being porous (flow holes).).
Regarding claim 8, McDonald teaches wherein the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane is coated with polytetrafluoroethylene ([0023-24] point to the membrane 24, which can be formed using Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Note that [0024] discloses “membrane 8”, but this is interpreted to be a typographical error and meant to instead disclose “membrane 24” due to the specification already disclosing “a bottom recess 8” (see [0021]).).
Regarding claim 9, McDonald teaches wherein the chip package structure further comprises a base and a chip disposed on the base (Fig. 1 and [0021] point to a pressure sensor 4 (chip) mounted to a bottom recess 8 of the durable housing 2 (base).), wherein the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane is suspended above the chip, a surface of a portion of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane around the air hole facing the chip is not covered by the lid body, and a surface of a portion of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane around the air hole facing away from the chip is covered by the lid body (Fig. 1 points to membrane 24 comprising an exposed portion (shielding part) spanning the opening 25 (air hole). It is considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would at least consider changing the shape of the opening in order to limit the total exposure to outside contaminants, such that an overhang is formed to cover a portion of the membrane facing away from the chip.).
Regarding claim 10, McDonald teaches wherein the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane has a plurality of irregular pores for gas to flow from one surface of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane to another surface (Fig. 1 and [0023] point to the membrane 24 being porous (irregular pores).).
Regarding claim 11, McDonald teaches wherein a diameter of each of the irregular pores is between 0.03 micron to 1 micron ([0024] points to forming the membrane out of PTFE with holes that are smaller than one micrometer in diameter. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that [0024] discloses “membrane 8”, but this is interpreted to be a typographical error and meant to instead disclose “membrane 24” due to the specification already disclosing “a bottom recess 8” (see [0021]).).
Regarding claim 14, Jo teaches wherein the recesses do not penetrate through the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane (Fig. 4D points to the waterproof film 400 (hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane) with surface(s) (recesses) bonded to the cover 300.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McDonald and Jo, such that the recesses do not penetrate through the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane in order to create an adhesive force between the lid body and the membrane.
Regarding claim 15, McDonald teaches a manufacturing method of a gas-permeable package lid of a chip package structure, comprising: providing a hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane (Fig. 1 points to a pressure sensor package comprising a membrane 24.); and curing an encapsulation material in liquid form into a lid body ([0046] points to both durable housing 2 and cap 22 (lid body) comprising a corrosive resistant material such as a polymer (an encapsulation material in liquid form).), wherein the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane is bonded to the lid body (Fig. 1 and [0026] point to the membrane 24.), the lid body has a body portion (Fig. 1 and [0022-23] point to a cap 22 (lid body; body portion) located on cap surface 20.), an air hole is formed in the lid body and penetrates through the body portion of the lid body (Fig. 1 points to an opening 25 (air hole).), the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane has a shielding part shielding the air hole and an embedded part embedded in the lid body(Fig. 1, [0024], and [0026] point to the membrane 24 comprising an exposed portion (shielding part) spanning the opening 25 (air hole), and sides 27 (embedded part) formed within the cap 22.).
McDonald alone fails to teach a lid body having a plurality of anchors, wherein, the anchors are respectively located in the recesses, and wherein the embedded part of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane has an upper surface and a lower surface, the upper surface and the lower surface respectively have a plurality of recesses, wherein, the anchors are respectively located in the recesses.
McDonald in combination with Jo teaches a lid body having a plurality of anchors, wherein, the anchors are respectively located in the recesses, and wherein the embedded part of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane has an upper surface and a lower surface, the upper surface and the lower surface respectively have a plurality of recesses, wherein, the anchors are respectively located in the recesses (Fig. 1 of McDonald points to the membrane 24 formed partially within the cap 22 (lid body). Fig. 4D and Col. 5, lines 11-16 of Jo point to a cover 300 comprising rough surfaces 300a-300b (plurality of anchors) which are bonded to a waterproof film 400 (plurality of recesses) made of PTFE.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McDonald and Jo, such that the lid body further comprises a plurality of anchors in order to create great surface roughness and by extension an increased adhesive force between the lid body and the membrane.
Regarding claim 18, McDonald in combination with Jo teaches wherein a plurality of flow holes of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane are located at an edge of the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane (Fig. 1 and [0023] of McDonald point to the membrane 24, and by extension sides 27 (edge), being porous (a plurality of flow holes).), a plurality of notch-anchored portions of the lid body are respectively located in the flow holes (Fig. 4D of Jo points to the cover 300 comprising rough surface(s) (plurality of notch-anchored portions) which are used to bond said cover to the waterproof film 400 (hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McDonald and Jo, such that the lid body further comprises a plurality of notch-anchored portions in order to create great surface roughness and by extension an increased adhesive force between the lid body and the membrane.
Regarding claim 19, McDonald teaches wherein the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane is coated with polytetrafluoroethylene ([0023-24] point to the membrane 24, which can be formed using Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Note that [0024] discloses “membrane 8”, but this is interpreted to be a typographical error and meant to instead disclose “membrane 24” due to the specification already disclosing “a bottom recess 8” (see [0021]).).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. in further view of Nishi (PGPub No. 20110077329).
Regarding claim 12, Nishi teaches wherein the encapsulation material has a plurality of particles, a particle size of each of the particles is between 3 microns to 10 microns ([0015] points to an amorphous siliceous powder (encapsulation material) comprising a portion of Al having a particle size range of 3µm or more to less than 15µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McDonald et al. and Nishi, such that the encapsulation material comprises a plurality of particles in order to reduce the viscosity of the encapsulation material and enhance the molding property.
Regarding claim 13, Nishi teaches wherein the encapsulation material has a plurality of first particles and a plurality of second particles, a particle size of each of the first particles is between 3 microns to 10 microns, a particle size of each of the second particles is between 20 microns to 35 microns ([0015] points to an amorphous siliceous powder (encapsulation material) comprising a first portion of Al (second particles) having a particle size range of 15µm or more to less than 70µm, and a second portion of Al (first particles) having a particle size range of 3µm or more to less than 15µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McDonald et al. and Nishi, such that the encapsulation material comprises a first plurality of particles and a second plurality of larger particles in order to enhance the molding property of said material by better balancing the viscosity.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald in further view Austen (US Patent No. 7077938).
Regarding claim 16, Austen teaches wherein curing the encapsulation material in liquid form into the lid body is performing an insert molding process (Fig. 3a and Col. 4, lines 47-57 point to the formation of a gas sensor comprising the insert moulding of an electrode assembly, including a membrane 18, into a housing 12b (encapsulation material; lid body).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McDonald et al. and Austen, such that the lid body is formed using an insert molding process in order to properly secure the membrane in place and prevent the formation of defects.
Regarding claim 17, McDonald in combination with Austen teaches wherein curing the encapsulation material in liquid form into the lid body comprises: providing a lower mold, wherein the lower mold has a plurality of positioning pins; positioning the hydrophobic gas-permeable membrane on the lower mold by the positioning pins; clamping an upper mold and the lower mold to form a molding cavity communicating with an injection channel in the upper mold and the lower mold, wherein the upper mold and the lower mold further form a closed cavity, the closed cavity is isolated from the molding cavity and the injection channel; injecting the encapsulation material in liquid form from the injection channel into the molding cavity and curing the encapsulation material in liquid form to form the lid body, wherein the air hole is formed in the closed cavity; and stripping the lid body (Fig. 3a and Col. 4, lines 47-57 of Austen point to an insert moulding process which includes placing an electrode assembly, including a membrane 18, into an appropriate position (positioning pins) within a mould (lower mold), flowing molten polymer (encapsulation material) around the assembly to form the housing 12b (lid body), and simultaneously adding further material (upper mold) to create partitions (closed cavity; molding cavity). Fig. 1 of McDonald points to a completed assembly comprising a cap 22, membrane 24, and an opening 25 (air hole). It is considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would strip the lid body from the upper and lower molds in order to attach it to the chip package structure.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McDonald et al. and Austen, such that the lid body is formed using an insert molding process in order to properly secure the membrane in place and prevent the formation of defects.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. in further view of Heikkinen (PGPub No. 20130234171).
Regarding claim 20, Heikkinen teaches wherein the upper mold and the lower mold are heated to between 155°C and 185°C, a pressure range when injecting the encapsulation material in liquid form is between 410 psi and 515 psi ([0064] points to a molding process, which may include an inert molding, where the one or more molds (the upper mold and the lower mold) are maintained at a temperature in a range of, but not limited to, 100oC to 200oC and a pressure in a range of, but not limited to, 50psi to 1000psi. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).), and a pressure duration is between 16 seconds and 32 seconds (One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the pressure duration time to be a result effective variable affecting the final quality of the mold(s). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the process of Heikkinen to have the pressure duration time within the claimed range in order to properly cure the mold(s), and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McDonald et al. and Heikkinen, such that curing process is performed under specific parameters in order to prevent the formation of any defects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the objection(s) of claims 2 and 4-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection(s) of said claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of McDonald in further view of Jo (US Patent No. 11131568).
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 Patrick L Cullen whose telephone number is (703)756-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30AM - 5PM 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, Dale Page can be reached at (571)270-7877. 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.
/PATRICK CULLEN/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights