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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 6, “the width of the first electrode” should be changed to --the width of the first electrode between the pair of gaps-- or similar language to specify which electrode width is being referred to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second electrode having a plurality of through holes exposing the moisture-sensitive element of claim 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 12-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santangelo et al. (US 2015/0219582 A1) (hereinafter Santangelo) in view of Zhao et al. (Effect of interdigital electrode gap on the performance of SnO2 modified MoS2 capacitive humidity sensor, 2018) (hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 1, Santangelo teaches a humidity sensor [humidity sensor] (Para [0034]) comprising:
a sensing element [sensor 1, 100] including a first electrode [electrode structure 11, 111], a second electrode [electrode structure 10, 110], and a moisture-sensitive element [sensitive layer 8, 108], a portion of the moisture-sensitive element is sandwiched between the first electrode and the second electrode [electrodes 10, 110 and 11, 111 incorporated in sensitive layer 8, 108] (Para [0039-0042], see Figs. 1-4), the first electrode has a serpentine shape and a width between a pair of gaps each between a plurality of windings of the serpentine shape (see Fig. 4); and
a switching device switching the first electrode between a first state of operation and a second state of operation [switch 19, 119], the first electrode senses an electric property of the moisture-sensitive element in the first state of operation [sensing operating condition for detecting capacitance between electrode structures 10, 110 and 11, 111] (Para [0050, 0064]), the first electrode heats the moisture-sensitive element with an electric current through the first electrode in the second state of operation [restoring operating condition causing heating current to flow through electrode structure 11, 111] (Para [0051, 0064]).
Santangelo is silent as to the width of the first electrode and the width of a gap between a plurality of windings of the serpentine shape; as such, Santangelo fails to teach wherein a width of a gap of the pair of gaps is smaller than the width of the first electrode between a pair of gaps. Zhao teaches a humidity sensor wherein the ratio between electrode width and gap width can be chosen in various configurations depending on desired sensitivity at a specific humidity range, including a configuration wherein the width of the electrode gap is smaller than the width of the electrode (section 4, see Table 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Santangelo with Zhao, such to choose a ratio between a width of the first electrode between a pair of gaps each between a plurality of windings and a width of a gap of the pair of gaps, such as a configuration wherein the width of the gap is smaller than the width of the electrode, in order to achieve a target sensor sensitivity for an expected humidity range. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the first electrode has a pair of electrical contact points at a same electric potential in the first state of operation [switch 19, 119 open] and at a different electric potential in the second state of operation [switch 19, 119 closed, connecting first electrode in parallel with supply source 18, 118] (Santangelo Para [0048], see Figs. 2 and 4)
Regarding claim 4, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein a surface along the serpentine shape is in direct contact with the moisture-sensitive element [108] (see Santangelo Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a control device controlling: a switching of the switching device and/or a flow of the electric current through the first electrode [switch 19 controlled by control unit 17] (Santangelo Para [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 6 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the control device is an integrated circuit or a microchip [control unit 17 may be integrated in the same chip as that of the sensor 1] (Santangelo Para [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the first electrode has a layer of a material selected from: tungsten, chrome, titanium, titanium nitride, manganese, nickel-chrome alloy, and carbon [non-alloy metal] (Santangelo Para [0082]).
Regarding claim 13, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 12 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition wherein the first electrode has a noble metal layer formed on the layer of the material [gold] (Santangelo Para [0082]).
Regarding claim 14, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition wherein the switching device switches the second electrode between the first state of operation and the second state of operation [sensing operating condition and restoring operating condition] (Santangelo Para [0050-0051, 0064]).
Regarding claim 20, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition wherein the electric property is a capacitance of the moisture-sensitive element and the electric current is a direct current (Santangelo Para [0042, 0047]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Itakura et al. (US 2006/0186901 A1) (hereinafter Itakura).
Regarding claim 7, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 6 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the control device controls the switching of the switching device automatically based on a predetermined period or according to a threshold value related to the electric property of the moisture-sensitive element. Itakura teaches a humidity sensor comprising a control device that controls switching to a state of operation in which a moisture sensitive element is heated based on a predetermined period (Para [0035, 0056]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Santangelo in view of Zhao with Itakura such that the control device controls the switching of the switching device automatically based on a predetermined period or according to a threshold value related to the electric property of the moisture-sensitive element, in order to regularly regenerate the sensor.
Claims 9-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Guillemet et al. (US 9,239,310 B2) (hereinafter Guillemet).
Regarding claims 9-11, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 8 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the first electrode is formed directly on a passivation layer of the integrated circuit, wherein the passivation layer has a silicon nitride layer and/or a silicon dioxide layer. Guillemet teaches a capacitive humidity sensor formed directly on a passivation layer of silicon nitride of a semiconductor circuit (Col 7, lines 15-20, see Claim 1, Abstract, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Santangelo in view of Zhao with Guillemet such that the first electrode is formed directly on a passivation layer of the integrated circuit, wherein the passivation layer has a silicon nitride layer and/or a silicon dioxide layer, in order to decrease manufacturing costs.
Regarding claims 15 and 17-18, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the second electrode is porous and is an organic material doped with a plurality of electrically conductive particles. Guillemet teaches a capacitive humidity sensor comprising a porous electrode comprised of organic binders filled with a plurality of platinum or carbon particles (Col 5, lines 22-27). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Santangelo in view of Zhao with Guillemet such that the second electrode is porous and is an organic material doped with a plurality of electrically conductive particles, in order to increase sensor sensitivity.
Regarding claim 16, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the second electrode is a material selected from: an Intrinsically Conductive Polymer, a phenolic resin, a vinyl polymer, a rubber, a fluoropolymer, a polyolefin, a polyester, a polyanhydride, a silicone, a biopolymer, an inorganic polymer, or a combination of thereof. Guillemet teaches a capacitive humidity sensor comprising an electrode comprised of a conducting polymer (Col 1, lines 35-45). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Santangelo in view of Zhao with Guillemet such that the second electrode is a material selected from: an Intrinsically Conductive Polymer, a phenolic resin, a vinyl polymer, a rubber, a fluoropolymer, a polyolefin, a polyester, a polyanhydride, a silicone, a biopolymer, an inorganic polymer, or a combination of thereof, in order to increase sensor sensitivity. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 19, Santangelo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the second electrode is metallic and has a plurality of through-holes exposing the moisture-sensitive element. Guillemet teaches a capacitive humidity sensor comprising a porous electrode comprised of organic binders filled with a plurality of platinum or carbon particles [metallic composite] (Col 5, lines 22-27). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Santangelo in view of Zhao with Guillemet such that the second electrode is metallic and has a plurality of through-holes exposing the moisture-sensitive element, in order to increase sensor sensitivity.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santangelo in view of French (NL 2011845 C2) (hereinafter French).
Regarding claim 21, Santangelo teaches a humidity sensor [humidity sensor] (Para [0034]) comprising:
a sensing element [sensor 1, 100] including a first electrode [electrode structure 11, 111], a second electrode [electrode structure 10, 110], and a moisture-sensitive element [sensitive layer 8, 108], a portion of the moisture-sensitive element is sandwiched between the first electrode and the second electrode [electrodes 10, 110 and 11, 111 incorporated in sensitive layer 8, 108] (Para [0039-0042], see Figs. 1-4); and
a switching device switching the first electrode between a first state of operation and a second state of operation [switch 19, 119], the first electrode senses an electric property of the moisture-sensitive element in the first state of operation [sensing operating condition for detecting capacitance between electrode structures 10, 110 and 11, 111] (Para [0050, 0064]), the first electrode heats the moisture-sensitive element with an electric current through the first electrode in the second state of operation [restoring operating condition causing heating current to flow through electrode structure 11, 111] (Para [0051, 0064]).
Santangelo fails to teach wherein the second state of operation comprises both the first and second electrodes heating the moisture-sensitive element with an electric current through both the first and second electrodes. French teaches a capacitive humidity sensor comprising a sensing element including first and second electrodes [3,4] with a moisture-sensitive element [5], wherein a current can be applied to the first and second electrodes so that the electrodes can serve as a heating element (Pg. 4, lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Santangelo with French such that the second state of operation comprises both the first and second electrodes heating the moisture-sensitive element with an electric current through both the first and second electrodes, for the predictable result of heating the sensitive layer.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santangelo in view of Guillemet
Regarding claim 22, Santangelo teaches a humidity sensor [humidity sensor] (Para [0034]) comprising:
a sensing element [sensor 1, 100] including a first electrode [electrode structure 11, 111], a second electrode [electrode structure 10, 110], and a moisture-sensitive element [sensitive layer 8, 108], a portion of the moisture-sensitive element is sandwiched between the first electrode and the second electrode [electrodes 10, 110 and 11, 111 incorporated in sensitive layer 8, 108] (Para [0039-0042], see Figs. 1-4); and
a switching device switching the first electrode between a first state of operation and a second state of operation [switch 19, 119], the first electrode senses an electric property of the moisture-sensitive element in the first state of operation [sensing operating condition for detecting capacitance between electrode structures 10, 110 and 11, 111] (Para [0050, 0064]), the first electrode heats the moisture-sensitive element with an electric current through the first electrode in the second state of operation [restoring operating condition causing heating current to flow through electrode structure 11, 111] (Para [0051, 0064]).
Santangelo fails to teach wherein the second electrode is formed of a metal and has a plurality of through-holes exposing the moisture-sensitive element. Guillemet teaches a capacitive humidity sensor comprising a porous electrode comprised of organic binders filled with a plurality of platinum or carbon particles [metallic composite] (Col 5, lines 22-27). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Santangelo with Guillemet such that the second electrode is formed of a metal and has a plurality of through-holes exposing the moisture-sensitive element, in order to increase sensor sensitivity.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santangelo in view of Cook et al. (US 2017/0350846 A1) (hereinafter Cook).
Regarding claim 22, Santangelo teaches a humidity sensor [humidity sensor] (Para [0034]) comprising:
a sensing element [sensor 1, 100] including a first electrode [electrode structure 11, 111], a second electrode [electrode structure 10, 110], and a moisture-sensitive element [sensitive layer 8, 108], a portion of the moisture-sensitive element is sandwiched between the first electrode and the second electrode [electrodes 10, 110 and 11, 111 incorporated in sensitive layer 8, 108] (Para [0039-0042], see Figs. 1-4); and
a switching device switching the first electrode between a first state of operation and a second state of operation [switch 19, 119], the first electrode senses an electric property of the moisture-sensitive element in the first state of operation [sensing operating condition for detecting capacitance between electrode structures 10, 110 and 11, 111] (Para [0050, 0064]), the first electrode heats the moisture-sensitive element with an electric current through the first electrode in the second state of operation [restoring operating condition causing heating current to flow through electrode structure 11, 111] (Para [0051, 0064]).
Santangelo fails to teach wherein the second electrode is formed of a metal and has a plurality of through-holes exposing the moisture-sensitive element. Cook teaches a capacitive humidity sensor comprising a porous electrode formed of metal for exposing a moisture-sensitive element (Para [0026-0030], see Figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Santangelo with Cook such that the second electrode is formed of a metal and has a plurality of through-holes exposing the moisture-sensitive element, in order to increase sensor sensitivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding newly added claim 22, Applicant argues that Guillemet fails to teach a second electrode formed of a metal, arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a metal and a metallic composite are two fundamentally different types of materials. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly amended limitation states “a second electrode formed of a metal”. The limitation does not preclude the possibility of the second electrode being a metallic composite, as taught by Guillemet. For the purposes of furthering prosecution, an alternative rejection of claim 22 is also presented above using a new reference.
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 DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights