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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (2011/0303993).
Re claims 1 and 15, Yamamoto discloses a substrate (31) comprising a through hole (Fig. 4); a pair of electrodes (54/56) formed on the substrate (31); and a metal wire (55) configured to electrically connect the pair of electrodes ([0240-0242]).
Re claim 2, Yamamoto discloses wherein the through hole is formed between the pair of electrodes (Fig. 4).
Re claims 3 and 16, Yamamoto discloses wherein the metal wire is formed above the through hole (Fig. 4).
Re claims 4 and 17, Yamamoto discloses wherein the metal wire comprises at least one material selected from a group consisting of gold (Au) ([0243]).
Re claims 5 and 18, Yamamoto discloses wherein the metal wire has a diameter of 25 µm ([0243]~ which is within the claimed rage of 1 micrometer (µm) to 10 millimeters (mm)).
Re claim 6, Yamamoto discloses wherein the substrate comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si) ([0129]).
Re claim 7, Yamamoto discloses wherein the substrate (31) further comprises an insulating film (34) formed on the substrate (Fig. 1A~ [0178]).
Re claim 10, Yamamoto discloses wherein the substrate has a thickness of about 2mm to about 200 µm ([0183]~ which is withing the claimed range of 50 µm to about 800 µm).
Re claim 14, Yamamoto discloses further comprising: an adhesive layer (36) on the substrate (Fig. 1A~ [0195] polyimide resin which is known to have adhesive properties).
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in ch the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, 15, 19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hultmark et al. (2025/0123302).
Re claims 1 and 15, Hultmark et al. discloses a substrate (20) comprising a through hole (25)(Fig. 3A); a pair of electrodes (32~ [0061]) formed on the substrate (20); and a metal wire (30/31) configured to electrically connect the pair of electrodes (Fig. 3A).
Re claims 11 and 19, Hultmark et al. discloses wherein the semiconductor-type wind speed sensor is configured to control a temperature of the metal wire by allowing a current to flow through the metal wire ([0002]).
Re claims 12 and 20, Hultmark et al. discloses wherein the semiconductor-type wind speed sensor is configured to calculate a wind speed based on a change in a resistance value of the metal wire due to a change in a temperature of the metal wire caused by an air flow passing through the through hole ([0002]).
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.
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claims 1-7, 10 and 14-18 above, and further in view of the following comments.
Re claim 8, Yamamoto discloses using an insulating layer (34) over the substrate (31).
Yamamoto does not specifically disclose wherein the insulating film comprises at least one material selected from a group consisting of an oxide film, a nitride film, an oxynitride film, a nitride oxide film, a phosphosilicate glass (PSG) film, and a borophosphosilicate glass (BPSG) film.
It was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention using any of the above materials in a sensor substrate.
It would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yamamoto and the known in the art to enable the insulating material of Yamamoto to be the same according to the known teachings because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable materials for the disclosed insulating material of Yamamoto and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 9, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions/shape because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions/shapes are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension/shape. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional/shape limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re claim 13, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited area through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of area, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed area or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen area or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen area is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2015/0168195 A1, US 2010/0207218 A1 disclose a similar configuration with for a sensor device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 February 12, 2026