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 § 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.
Claims 1-7 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a ring wall surrounds a periphery of the cover body and is connected to the top wall, the top wall and a peripheral wall define an internal space…” in lines 6-7. This appears to mean that a ring wall surrounds a part of the cover body and the internal space is defined by a peripheral wall rather than the ring wall. However, the specification discloses that ring wall forms a periphery of the cover body and the internal space is defined by the top wall and the ring wall. Therefore, there is a conflict between the claim and the specification. It has been held that a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP 2173.03 and In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). The examiner has interpreted the claim to mean “a ring wall forms a periphery of the cover body and is connected to the top wall, the top wall and the ring wall define an internal space…”
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for inhering the same problem.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW M637625 by Hsieh (“Hsieh”) in view of U.S. Patent 8,734,573 issued to Ono et al. (“Ono”) and U.S. Patent 12,191,219 issued to Chen et al. (“Chen”).
As for claim 1, Hsieh discloses a gas sensor package structure (Fig. 4), comprising:
a substrate (1), comprising an upper surface (see Fig. 4), wherein at least one first solder point (11) is arranged on the upper surface;
a cover body (2), made of thermosetting epoxy through die-casting or injection molding (Abstract), wherein the cover body comprises an opening (bottom of 2) toward the substrate and a top wall (2a) away from the substrate, a ring wall (2b) forms a periphery of the cover body and is connected to the top wall, the top wall and the ring wall define an internal space (C), at least one through hole (23) in communication with the internal space is provided on the top wall, and the ring wall of the cover body is combined with the upper surface of the substrate (see Fig. 4);
at least one sensing chip (3), located in the internal space of the cover body and combined with the upper surface of the substrate (see Fig. 4), wherein the sensing chip is configured to sense at least one gas in the internal space (see the paragraph beginning “The at least one sensing chip 3 …”), the sensing chip comprises at least one second solder point (31), and the second solder point is electrically connected to the first solder point of the substrate through a wire (32); and
a breathable film (4) formed of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), embedded under the top wall of the cover body (see Fig. 4) and comprising an upper surface, a lower surface, and at least one riveting hole (hole for 42) penetrating the upper surface and the lower surface, wherein the breathable film selectively allows partial external air to enter the internal space of the cover body through the through hole (see the paragraph beginning “The protective film 4 is embedded in the cover body 2 …”), the upper surface and the lower surface of the breathable film are rough surfaces (inherent because the surfaces are made of atoms) and at least one vent hole (implicitly provided to selectively allow a gas to enter the cavity), and, when the cover body is formed, the breathable film is pre-placed in a mold (see the paragraph beginning “The protective film 4 is embedded in the cover body 2 …”), and when the epoxy is infused to form the cover body, the thermosetting epoxy is die-cast or injection molded to fill the riveting hole of the breathable film (see Fig. 4), so that the breathable film is embedded into the cover body after curing, and the breathable film and the cover body are integrated into one body (see Fig. 4 and the paragraph beginning “The protective film 4 is embedded in the cover body 2 …”).
Hsieh does not explicitly disclose that the at least one vent hole is a plurality of vent holes.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to create a plurality of vent holes in the breathable film the achieve the predictable result of providing openings in which a gas can be selectively allowed into the cavity.
Hsieh as modified does not explicitly disclose that when the epoxy is infused to form the cover body, the thermosetting epoxy is die-cast or injection molded to fill and penetrate into the vent holes on the lower surface of the breathable film.
However, Ono discloses (col. 10, lines 12-18) that when epoxy is infused to form a body (1, 2), thermosetting epoxy is die-cast or injection molded to fill and penetrate into vent holes on a lower surface of a breathable film (3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the gas sensor package structure of Hsieh by penetrating the vent holes of Hsieh with the epoxy as disclosed by Ono in order to strongly fix the breathable film to the cover body (Ono: col. 10, lines 12-18).
Hsieh as modified by Ono does not explicitly disclose that the epoxy is filled and penetrated into vent holes on both the upper surface and the lower surface of the breathable film because Hsieh as modified by Ono does not disclose that both the upper surface and the lower surface of the breathable film are embedded in epoxy during the molding process.
However, Chen discloses that both an upper surface and a lower surface of a breathable film (120) are embedded in epoxy during the molding process (see Figs. 6C and 6D).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the breathable film of Hsieh and Ono to be embedded in epoxy as disclosed by Chen in order to strengthen the bonding of the film and improve reliability (Chen: col. 1, lines 47-51).
As for claim 2, Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen discloses the gas sensor package structure according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) and that when the cover body is formed by the mold, the thermosetting epoxy at a fixed flow rate is poured into the mold through injection or die-casting for molding (the fixed flow rate describes the process of making the product and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art), and is pressurized to penetrate into the upper surface and the lower surface of the breathable film (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen does not disclose that a penetration thickness accounts for 30% to 50% of a thickness of the breathable film. Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen discloses a penetration thickness (implied by the rejection of claim 1 above), but Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen does not disclose the relative size of the penetration thickness with respect to the thickness of the breathable film.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the penetration thickness of Hsieh, Ono and Chen to be the claimed amount in order to achieve the predictable result of strongly fixing the breathable film to the cover body.
As for claim 3, Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen discloses the gas sensor package structure according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen does not disclose that the thermosetting epoxy forming the cover body penetrates into the vent holes of the breathable film to a depth of 10 μm to 16 μm. Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen discloses a penetration depth (implied by the rejection of claim 1 above), but Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen does not disclose the scale of the process of forming a penetration depth.
However, it has been held that mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to scale the penetration depth of Hsieh, Ono and Chen to be the claimed amount to achieve the predictable result of strongly fixing the breathable film to the cover body.
As for claim 4, the examiner notes that the claim appears to describe the process of making the breathable film and the cover body into one body. Since Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen disclose a breathable film and a cover body that are integrated into one body (see the rejection of claim 1 above), the claimed invention does not structurally distinguish over the prior art.
As for claim 5, Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen discloses the gas sensor package structure according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) and that two holes (Hsieh: “at least one through hole” in the abstract clearly envisions two holes) are provided on the top wall of the cover body.
Hsieh as presently modified by Ono and Chen does not disclose that the two holes are strip-shaped through holes parallel to each other. Instead, Hsieh discloses holes that allow a gas to enter the internal space to be analyzed by the sensing chip (Hsieh: see Fig. 4).
However, Chen discloses two holes (H10) that are strip-shaped through holes parallel to each other (see Fig. 1). Chen discloses that the holes allow a gas to enter an internal space to be analyzed by the sensing chip (Chen: see Fig. 2).
Because Hsieh and Chen both disclose holes that allow a gas to enter an internal space, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the strip-shaped holes of Chen for the holes of Hsieh to achieve the predictable result of providing holes that allow a gas to enter the internal space.
As for claim 6, Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen disclose that a plurality (see the rejection of claim 1) of circular through holes (Hsieh: 23) is provided on the top wall of the cover body (Hsieh: see Fig. 4).
As for claim 7, Hsieh as modified by Ono and Chen discloses that the cover body and the breathable film are in one of square, circular, or polygonal shapes (Hsieh: see Fig. 3), and the riveting holes are respectively located at a junction of two side walls of the breathable film and the cover body (Hsieh: see Figs. 3 and 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 11,125,734 issued to Choi et al. (“Choi”) is cited for all that it discloses including a gas sensing package that includes a substrate, a cover body, a sensing chip and a breathable film formed of PTFE.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853