DETAILED ACTION
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 02/21/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6: This claim recites “wherein the channel has at least one dimension configured to mitigate condensation in the channel”. The specification states “[a] length of the channel 202 may be configured to mitigate condensation forming within the channel 202”; however, it appears that the instant specification / disclosure fails to explicitly recite the length of the channel or what dimension(s) or length results in the functionality of claim 6. It appears that only the depth of the channel is disclosed whereas the specification explicitly states it is the length of the channel that is configured to mitigate condensation. As no length is disclosed, it is unclear what dimension(s) / length are required for prior art to read on the limitation of claim 6.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 20200284677 A1) in view of Morsink et al. (US 20190391046 A1).Regarding claim 1:Wagner teaches (e.g., FIGS. 5-8) a sensor device comprising:
a substrate (200): comprising a substrate upper surface; comprising a substrate lower surface opposite the substrate upper surface; forming a channel (211) between the substrate upper surface and the substrate lower surface; forming a first port hole (218) through the substrate upper surface to the channel; and forming a second port hole (214) through the substrate upper surface to the channel;
an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) die (530 - [0036]) mounted on the substrate upper surface so as not to cover the first port hole and the second port hole (e.g., [0036] discloses that the ASIC may be mounted elsewhere on the substrate; also see FIG. 8);
a spacer (230): formed on the substrate upper surface; forming a first cavity (314) surrounding the first port hole (218); forming a second cavity (312) surrounding the second port hole (214); and comprising a spacer upper surface
a transducer (FIG. 5 - 100): mounted on the substrate upper surface so as to cover the first port hole (218); placed within the first cavity (314); and electrically connected with the ASIC die ([0036]); and
a lid (300): attached to the spacer (230) upper surface; comprising a lid upper surface; comprising a first chimney (330 / 332) protruding from the lid upper surface and aligned with the first cavity (314); and comprising a second chimney (320 / 322) protruding from the lid upper surface and aligned with the second cavity (312)Wagner fails to teach:
the spacer is an overmolding: formed on the substrate upper surface; molded over the ASIC die; forming a first cavity surrounding the first port hole; forming a second cavity surrounding the second port hole; and comprising an overmolding upper surfaceMorsink teaches:
the spacer is an overmolding (FIGS. 2A-2B - 112; [0026]): formed on the substrate upper surface; molded over the ASIC die (FIG. 1 - 104; [0024]); forming a first cavity (FIG. 2B - 115) surrounding the first port hole (FIG. 2B - 107); and comprising an overmolding upper surface(also see FIG. 3C for a better perspective)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the overmolding of Morsink instead of the spacer of Wagner to better protect and cover the ASIC and/or any components on the substrate that aren’t required to be in line and exposed to the pressure communication openings, resulting in a more rugged device.
The examiner notes that “forming a second cavity surrounding the second port hole” is met upon combination when the overmolding of Morsink is used instead of the spacer of Wagner.
Regarding claim 2:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner also teaches:
wherein the sensor device is a differential pressure sensor ([0008], [0034], [0048], etc.)
Regarding claim 3:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner also teaches:
wherein the substrate further comprises a plurality of pins (FIG. 17 - 1720 + 1710) disposed on the substrate lower surface that are electrically connected with the ASIC die (Wagner teaches that the pins may be disposed on the lower surface of the substrate in [0071])
Regarding claim 5:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner also teaches:
wherein the channel is straight (e.g., FIG. 7 - 211; [0009], [0055])
Regarding claim 7:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the ASIC die comprises a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS)
However, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known to use a CMOS based ASIC.
Regarding claim 8:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the transducer is a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS)
Wagner teaches a membrane-type pressure transducer (e.g., abstract), but fails to explicitly teach it is a MEMS transducer. However, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known to use a MEMS membrane-type transducer. Also see [0002]-[0003] of Natan (cited below)
Regarding claim 9:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner also teaches:
wherein the transducer comprises a membrane (e.g., abstract)
Regarding claim 10:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner also teaches:
wherein the first chimney and the second chimney are configured to connect with tubing(e.g., FIG. 5 - 320+322 and 330+332)
Regarding claim 11:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner also teaches:
wherein the first chimney and the second chimney are substantially cylindrical(e.g., FIG. 5 - 320+322 and 330+332)
Regarding claim 12:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Wagner and Morsink teach:
wherein: the lid further comprises a lid lower surface opposite the lid upper surface; and the lid lower surface is attached to the overmolding upper surface
See claim 1 rejection above. Wagner teaches a lid lower surface (FIG. 5 - bottom surface of 300). In the claim 1 rejection, the spacer 230 of Wagner is replaced with the overmolding of Morsink. The combination results in the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 15:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the sensor device further comprises a protection layer formed over the transducer
However, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known to use a simple, thin di-electric or insulating layer over a sensor membrane to protect it from the environment.
Regarding claim 16:Wagner, Morsink, and Official notice teach all the limitations of claim 15, as mentioned above.Official notice also teaches:
wherein the protection layer is configured to not affect performance of the transducer
As set forth in the claim 15 rejection above, it is well-known to use a simple, thin di-electric or insulating layer over a sensor membrane to protect it from the environment. Such thin protective layers are configured to not affect performance of the membrane or transducer, specifically because the initial calibration of the transducer is based on membrane deflection, which would include the protective layer(s).
Regarding claim 17:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner also teaches:
wherein: the sensor device has a rectangular footprint; and the channel is formed diagonally across the rectangular footprint(FIG. 7 - channel being 211)
Regarding claim 18:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner also teaches:
wherein: the sensor device further comprises an adhesive layer disposed between the transducer and the substrate upper surface; and the adhesive layer is configured to: allow for pressure transfer between the channel and an underside of the transducer; form a seal between the substrate upper surface and the underside of the transducer; and provide stress decoupling between the substrate upper surface and the transducer(e.g., [0010])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 20200284677 A1) in view of Morsink et al. (US 20190391046 A1) and further in view of Larson et al. (US 10285275 B2).Regarding claim 4:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the channel has a rectangular cross sectionLarson teaches:
wherein the channel has a rectangular cross section (Col. 3, Lines 30-44)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a channel having a rectangular cross section, as taught by Larson, in the device of Morsink as it is an art-recognized equivalent shape for a pressure communication channel. Larson teaches the channel may be “a rectangular, circular, or elliptical shape or other suitable shape”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 20200284677 A1) in view of Morsink et al. (US 20190391046 A1) and further in view of Koehler et al. (US 20100089169 A1).Regarding claim 13:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.Wagner fails to teach:
wherein the lid further comprises one or more standoffs configured to maintain a minimum adhesive thickness between the overmolding upper surface and the lid lower surfaceKoehler teaches:
one or more standoffs configured to maintain a minimum adhesive thickness between two parts (FIG. 3 - 30; claim 4, [0019], [0063])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the standoffs of Koehler in the device of Wagner and Morsink to ensure proper adhesion. Koehler explicitly teaches ([0019]) “[i]n order to guarantee that the intermediate space is completely filled with adhesive by the capillary effect and, thus, to produce the necessary thickness of the adhesive film, it is necessary to position the components precisely in relation to each other--for example, the pressure port and the housing and, therefore, the surfaces that are to be adhesively cemented together. In one embodiment it is possible to adjust the distance in a simple and reliable way by means of spacers, which are positioned between the surfaces.”
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 20200284677 A1) in view of Morsink et al. (US 20190391046 A1) and further in view of Natan et al. (US 20190276306 A1).Regarding claim 14:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner fails to teach:
wherein the lid is formed of a liquid-crystal polymerNatan teaches:
wherein the lid is formed of a liquid-crystal polymer ([0024])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the lid of LCP, as taught by Natan, in the device of Wagner since LCPs flow well for molding, have low moisture absorption, have good dimensional stability and low coefficients of thermal expansion, have high heat deflection temperatures, and/or have good chemical resistance.
Regarding claim 19:Wagner and Morsink teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Wagner fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the substrate further comprises a plurality of pins disposed on the substrate lower surface that form a land grid array (LGA)Natan teaches:
wherein the substrate further comprises a plurality of pins disposed on the substrate lower surface that form a land grid array (LGA)(FIG. 13; [0019], [0048])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the LGA of Natan instead of the pins of Wagner as it is an art-recognized equivalent structure for electrical connection of a sensor package.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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 at (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 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855