DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 January 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-20 were originally filed and subject to the Restriction/Election Requirement issued 09 February.
Applicant election of claims 1-17, without traverse, is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claim 14 is amended.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
Claim 17 is allowable for the reasons set forth herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dehe et al., US20150101395 (hereinafter “DEHE”) in view of Chen et al., US20220359405 (hereinafter “CHEN”).
Re claim 1, DEHE discloses a sensor for measuring a gas property, the sensor comprising:
a semiconductor die [0025], wherein the semiconductor die comprises:
a measuring cavity, wherein a measuring sensor element is arranged in the measuring cavity [0035],
a contact pad [0121],
a buried conductor, wherein the buried conductor electrically connects the measuring sensor element to the contact pad [0046], and
a conductive bonding layer surrounding the measuring cavity for providing a conductive bonding surface [0044],
wherein the buried conductor is insulated [0046]
DEHE fails to explicitly disclose wherein the buried conductor is insulated from the conductive bonding layer
However, CHEN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a sensor for measuring a gas property comprising a buried conductor insulated from a conductive bonding layer [0021-0022]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify DEHE to include the particular insulating structure of CHEN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the functionality of a sensor package while reducing cost (see at least CHEN [0106]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, CHEN merely teaches that it is well-known to insulate a conductor from a conductive bonding layer in a semiconductor package. Since both DEHE and CHEN disclose similar semiconductor sensor packages, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 2, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 1, as shown above. DEHE further discloses,
wherein the semiconductor die comprises a reference cavity [0033],
wherein a reference sensor element is arranged in the reference cavity, wherein the reference cavity is sealed from ambient gas [0033], and
wherein the measuring cavity is fluidly connected to ambient gas [0033]
Re claim 3, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 2, as shown above.
DEHE fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the measuring sensor element or the reference sensor element is made from a first type of polysilicon
However, CHEN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a sensor for measuring a gas property wherein at least one measuring sensor element or reference sensor element is made from a first type of polysilicon [0025]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify DEHE to include the particular material structure of CHEN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the functionality of a sensor package while reducing cost (see at least CHEN [0106]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, CHEN merely teaches that it is well-known to use polysilicon in a semiconductor sensor package. Since both DEHE and CHEN disclose similar semiconductor sensor packages, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 4, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 3, as shown above.
DEHE fails to explicitly disclose wherein the conductive bonding layer is made from the first type of polysilicon
However, CHEN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a sensor for measuring a gas property wherein a conductive bonding layer is made from a first type of polysilicon [0028]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify DEHE to include the particular material structure of CHEN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the functionality of a sensor package while reducing cost (see at least CHEN [0106]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, CHEN merely teaches that it is well-known to use polysilicon in a semiconductor sensor package. Since both DEHE and CHEN disclose similar semiconductor sensor packages, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 5, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 4, as shown above.
DEHE fails to explicitly disclose wherein the buried conductor is made from a second type of polysilicon
However, CHEN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a sensor for measuring a gas property wherein a buried conductor is made from a second type of polysilicon [0082]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify DEHE to include the particular material structure of CHEN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the functionality of a sensor package while reducing cost (see at least CHEN [0106]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, CHEN merely teaches that it is well-known to use polysilicon in a semiconductor sensor package. Since both DEHE and CHEN disclose similar semiconductor sensor packages, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 6, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 5, as shown above.
DEHE fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second type of polysilicon has a larger grain size than the first type of polysilicon
However, CHEN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a sensor for measuring a gas property wherein a second type of polysilicon has a larger grain size than a first type of polysilicon [0082], [0085]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify DEHE to include the particular material structure of CHEN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the functionality of a sensor package while reducing cost (see at least CHEN [0106]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, CHEN merely teaches that it is well-known to use different types of polysilicon in a semiconductor sensor package. Since both DEHE and CHEN disclose similar semiconductor sensor packages, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 7, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 1, as shown above.
DEHE fails to explicitly disclose wherein the buried conductor is insulated from the conductive bonding layer by a dielectric material
However, CHEN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein a buried conductor is insulated from a conductive bonding layer by a dielectric material [0028]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify DEHE to include the particular material structure of CHEN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the functionality of a sensor package while reducing cost (see at least CHEN [0106]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, CHEN merely teaches that it is well-known to use a dielectric insulating in a semiconductor sensor package. Since both DEHE and CHEN disclose similar semiconductor sensor packages, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 8, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 7, as shown above.
DEHE fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dielectric material comprises silicon oxide
However, CHEN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a sensor for measuring a gas property wherein the dielectric material comprises silicon oxide [0028]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify DEHE to include the particular material structure of CHEN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the functionality of a sensor package while reducing cost (see at least CHEN [0106]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, CHEN merely teaches that it is well-known to use a dielectric insulating in a semiconductor sensor package. Since both DEHE and CHEN disclose similar semiconductor sensor packages, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 9, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 2, as shown above. DEHE further discloses,
wherein the sensor comprises a covering configured to one or more of: cover the measuring cavity, or seal the reference cavity [0033]
Re claim 11, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 2, as shown above. DEHE further discloses,
wherein one or more of the measuring sensor element or the reference sensor element is formed as one piece with the semiconductor die [0072]
Re claim 12, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 2, as shown above. DEHE further discloses,
wherein the semiconductor die comprises an integrated circuit, and wherein one or more of the measuring sensor element or the reference sensor element are part of the integrated circuit [0033]
Re claim 13, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 2, as shown above. DEHE further discloses,
wherein the measuring sensor element and the reference sensor element are electrically connected to form a half bridge [0033]
Re claim 14, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 2, as shown above. DEHE further discloses,
wherein the sensor comprises at least two reference sensor elements and at least two measuring sensor elements, wherein a first reference sensor element of the at least two reference sensor elements is electrically connected with a first node to a first node of a first measuring sensor element of the at least two measuring sensor elements and with a second node to a second node of a second measuring sensor element of the at least two measuring sensor elements [0063-0064], and
wherein a second reference sensor element of the at least two reference sensor elements is electrically connected with a first node to a first node of the second measuring sensor element of the at least two measuring sensor elements and with a second node to the second node of the first measuring sensor element of the at least two measuring sensor elements [0063-0064]
Re claim 16, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 2, as shown above. DEHE further discloses,
wherein at least one of the measuring sensor element or the reference sensor element is free of silicon oxide [0058]
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DEHE/CHEN in view of Official Notice (hereinafter “ON”).
Re claim 10, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 9, as shown above.
DEHE fails to explicitly disclose wherein the covering is bonded to the conductive bonding layer by anodic bonding
However, the Examiner takes ON that the technique of anodic bonding applied to a covering and bonded layer in a semiconductor package was old and well known in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify DEHE to explicitly show that such technique was used to provide its covering of the bonded layer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the functionality of a sensor package while reducing cost (see at least CHEN [0106]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion merely teaches that it is well-known to use an anodic bonding technique to provide a covering of a bonded layer. Since DEHE, CHEN, and the Examiner’s assertion disclose similar features of semiconductor sensor packages, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 15, DEHE/CHEN renders obvious the sensor of claim 2, as shown above.
DEHE fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the measuring sensor element or the reference sensor element comprises a catalytic layer for reacting with gas molecules
However, the Examiner takes ON that providing a catalytic layer for a measuring/reference element in a semiconductor sensor package was old and well known in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify DEHE to include such structure. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the functionality of a sensor package while reducing cost (see at least CHEN [0106]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion merely teaches that it is well-known to employ a catalytic layer with a measuring/reference element in a semiconductor sensor package. Since DEHE, CHEN, and the Examiner’s assertion disclose similar features of semiconductor sensor packages, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 17 is 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. Specifically, the multiple measuring principle recited is not disclosed by nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record attached herein.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US20220341863, Wakana et al. – gas detection system
US20220336393, Chen et al. – IC sensor package
US20210351135, Or-Bach et al. – 3D semiconductor sensor package
US20190145929, Carbonelli et al. – gas sensor comprising a measuring sensing element and reference sensing element
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
Prosecution Insights