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
The objection to claim 5 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 5.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, applicant’s amendment to the claims necessitated a new rejection.
With respect to applicant’s argument, page 6, that the combination of references is not obvious nor possible.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Nakamoto teaches a gas sensor within a package including a base and a lid. Likewise, Roelver teaches a gas sensor within a package including a base and a lid. Both devices include holes in the lids in order to effectively allow gas to reach the sensor therein. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a suitable lid with desirable characteristics for the intended operating environment. Theuss teaches a gas sensor within a housing having a lid and a base. Theuss is relied upon to teach a wiring arrangement wherein the sensor within the housing is connected to a terminal outside of the housing. The references are directed to a gas sensor within a housing and are analogous art as the references are all related to the same field of endeavor and are pertinent. Itoi is no longer relied upon for the rejection of claims.
For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto (US20240044828) in view of Theuss et al. (US20200057031) further in view of Roelver et al. (US20160146752).
Claim 1: Nakamoto teaches a gas sensor (fig. 13) comprising: a gas detector (gas sensor element 3G) including a first pad (connecting member 5 connects to a pad on the sensor 3G [0108-0110]); a support substrate (wiring board 2) including a surface, on which a concave portion (accommodation recess 21) is formed, and configured to support the gas detector in the concave portion (see Fig. 13); a second pad (connection pad 22A) mounted on the concave portion; a lid (first layer 10) configured to cover the gas detector and fixed to the support substrate (first layer 10 is fixed to the wiring board 2 via second layer 11, bonding material 7 and bonding metal layer 6); and an external terminal (terminal electrode 22D) arranged outside the lid; wherein the first pad (electrode of the gas sensor 3G) is electrically connected to the second pad (connection pad 22A) via a conductive wire (connecting member 5), wherein the lid includes a first main surface (surface 103) facing the gas detector and a second main surface (surface 102) opposite the first main surface (see Fig. 13), wherein the first main surface is a flat surface (See Fig. 13) and is fixed to the support substrate (fixed via the bonding metal layer 6 and sealing bonding material 7) by being in contact with the support substrate and disposed over the concave portion (see Fig. 13), wherein the lid is provided with a plurality of through-holes (through holes 101), and wherein each of the plurality of through-holes has a diameter of 50 m or less ([0007, 0052]); wherein each of the plurality of through-holes extending from the first main surface (surface 103) to the second main surface (surface 102).
Nakamoto fails to teach the external terminal (terminal electrode 22D) is mounted on the surface of the support substrate; wherein the support substrate includes an electrical wiring disposed on the surface of the support substrate and electrically connecting the second pad to the external terminal.
However, Theuss teaches a gas sensor element 34 inside of a cell 33, Fig. 3. The interior of the cell 33 and the sensor 34 are on a surface of the substrate, the sensor 34 is connected to an external terminal (see Fig. 3, the external connection to the trace 36 is the terminal) on a same surface. Therefore, disposing an electrical trace on a surface of a substrate in order to electrically communicate an interior space to an exterior is known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an electrical trace and silicon lid, as taught by Theuss, with the device of Nakamoto in view of in order to be able to mount the other surface of the sensor to a support while keeping the terminal accessible.
Nakamoto in view of Theuss fails to teach wherein the lid is made of semiconductor material.
However, Roelver teaches a protective cap 130 made of silicon.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use silicon for the protective cap, as taught by Roelver, with the device of Nakamoto in view of Theuss in order to protect gas sensor elements by way of thermophoresis and active filtering of larger particles from soot deposits or from contaminants and deposits (Roelver [0007]).
Claim 3: Nakamoto in view of Theuss further in view of Roelver teaches the device of claim 1. Nakamoto teaches a gas sensor device including a lid 10 having through holes 101 which are sized between 50μm and 10μm [0007, 0052]. Therefore, the minimum diameter is greater than 20nm.
Claim 5: Nakamoto in view of Theuss further in view of Roelver teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein an area ratio of the plurality of through-holes is 10% or more, and wherein the area ratio is obtained by dividing an area of the plurality of through-holes of the second main surface in a plan view by an area of a region of the second main surface facing the concave portion in the plan view.
However, Roelver teaches that the design of the openings 136 can be optimized in order to achieve a suitable response from the sensor ([0016] In the case of a measurement medium having strongly contaminating action, for example, the area of the diffusion section can be made larger than in a case having a measurement medium having a less contaminating effect. [0043] According to one exemplary embodiment, the protective cap 130 can be or become formed in a manner adapted to at least one parameter of usage surroundings of the detection device 100 with respect to an area of the diffusion section 134 and additionally or alternatively with respect to a volume enclosed between the detection section 110 and the protective cap 130 or an enclosure volume, in which the sensor element 120 is arranged. [0051-0052] Therefore, an enclosure volume, a number of passage openings 136, and at least one dimension of the passage openings 136 can be created so that both a minimum number of particles can reach the sensor element 120 and also a suitable sensor dynamic response can be achieved.). Therefore, the number of openings in consideration with size of openings and the dimensions of the device are known to be result-effective variables and therefore obvious to optimize.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider the area of the diffusion section including dimensions of the device as well as the dimensions and number of through holes 136, as taught by Roelver, to achieve an area ratio of the plurality of through-holes of 10% or more in order to result in a reliable access of a gaseous analyte to the sensor (Roelver [0016]).
Claim 6: Nakamoto in view of Theuss further in view of Roelver teaches the sensor of claim 1. Nakamoto teaches wherein the lid (first layer 10) includes a convex portion that protrudes from the first main surface (the second layer 11 protrudes from the first main surface 103 of the first layer 10), and wherein the convex portion is fixed to the support substrate (the convex portion, second layer 11, is fixed to the substrate 2, see Fig. 13).
Claim 7: Nakamoto in view of Theuss further in view of Roelver teaches the sensor of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a gas permeability of the lid is 100 g/(m.sup.2.Math.24 h) or more.
However, Roelver teaches that the design of the openings 136 can be optimized in order to achieve a suitable response from the sensor ([0016] In the case of a measurement medium having strongly contaminating action, for example, the area of the diffusion section can be made larger than in a case having a measurement medium having a less contaminating effect. [0043] According to one exemplary embodiment, the protective cap 130 can be or become formed in a manner adapted to at least one parameter of usage surroundings of the detection device 100 with respect to an area of the diffusion section 134 and additionally or alternatively with respect to a volume enclosed between the detection section 110 and the protective cap 130 or an enclosure volume, in which the sensor element 120 is arranged. [0051-0052] Therefore, an enclosure volume, a number of passage openings 136, and at least one dimension of the passage openings 136 can be created so that both a minimum number of particles can reach the sensor element 120 and also a suitable sensor dynamic response can be achieved.). Therefore, the number of openings in consideration with size of openings and the dimensions of the device are known to be result-effective variables and therefore obvious to optimize to achieve the desired response which is directly affected by the permeability of the lid.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider the area of the diffusion section including the dimensions of the device as well as the dimensions and number of through holes 136, as taught by Roelver, to achieve a gas permeability of the lid is 100 g/(m.sup.2.Math.24 h) or more in order to result in reliable access of a gaseous analyte to the sensor (Roelver [0016]).
Claim 8: Nakamoto in view of Theuss further in view of Roelver teaches the sensor of claim 1. Nakamoto teaches wherein the second main surface of the lid is water-repellent treated (Nakamoto teaches the use of a water-repellant coating on the surface 102 of the substrate 1 (see Fig. 1, [0073]).
Claim 9: Nakamoto in view of Theuss further in view of Roelver teaches the sensor of claim 1. Nakamoto teaches wherein a distance between the first main surface and the second main surface is greater than 0.1 mm (the thickness of the first layer 10 T1 is between 50μm and 150 μm ([0052, 0057])).
Claim 10: Nakamoto in view of Theuss further in view of Roelver teaches the gas sensor of claim 1. Nakamoto in view of Theuss fails to teach wherein the lid is made of Si.
However, Roelver teaches wherein the lid is made of Si (silicon [0013,0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use silicon for the protective cap, as taught by Roelver, with the device of Nakamoto in view of Theuss in order to protect gas sensor elements by way of thermophoresis and active filtering of larger particles from soot deposits or from contaminants and deposits (Roelver [0007]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto in view of Theuss further in view of Roelver further in view of Elkins (US20120297868).
Claim 2: Nakamoto in view of Theuss further in view of Roelver teaches the gas sensor of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the lid satisfies IPX4 or higher of a protection grade in waterproof test (JIS C 0920).
However, Elkins teaches a portable gas monitor including a measuring unit (Fig. 4) which has an ingress protection rating of 3-7 [0023]. Therefore, the ingress protection rating is known to be a result-effective variable and can be optimized for particular applications.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an IP rating of at least 4 in order to be able to use the device in a wide variety of environments (Elkins [0023]).
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 4/2/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights