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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 in lines 10-12 that the first dummy material portion as “being containing” a dummy material that do not react with a predetermined gas. It is unclear is the first dummy material “is” (“being”) or just “contains” a dummy material that do not react with a predetermined gas.
Claim 1 further recites in lines 18-19 the second dummy material portion as “being containing” the dummy material. It is unclear is the second dummy material “is” (“being”) or just “contains” the dummy material.
The recitation of “the dummy material” in line 19 of claim 1 lacks antecedent bases rendering it unclear which dummy material (first or second) is being referred to.
The term “substantially” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes a first distance between the detection element and the first compensation element and a second distance between the detection element and the second compensation element that is “substantially” equal to each other.
The term “substantially” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes “substantially” equilateral triangle.
Claim 7 recites “the same third formation area” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
1. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. JP6218270 to Izawa. (cited by applicant)
Izawa teaches a gas sensor in the form of a sensor chip having a cavity 6 over which a support film 8 supports a metal oxide semiconductor film 9. [0013] A moisture sensitivity film 14 is provided to measure humidity around the sensor chip. [0022] Ambient temperature is measured by a thermistor or the like. [0002]
Izawa teaches that resistance value of the metal oxide semiconductor gas sensor is influenced by the absolute humidity of the surrounding atmosphere, ambient temperature. [0002]
Izawa teaches a heater is provided on a support film provided on a cavity of a semiconductor substrate. [0007].
Izawa teaches that the heater or the like may be provided on a supporting film (not shown) provided on the cavity ([0014]) but does not teach first and second insulating films formed over the cavity between which the heater is provided, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide the heater between first and second insulating films formed over the cavity for purposes of being able to separately supply electric power to the heater than the semiconductor gas sensor.
Izawa’s semiconductor gas sensor reads on applicant’s detection element. Izawa’s “thermistor or the like” reads on one of applicant’s compensation elements, and Izawa’s moisture sensitive film reads on the other one of applicant’s compensation elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Izawa’s semiconductor gas sensor, thermistor of the like, and moisture sensitive film on the supporting layer over the cavity as a matter of design choice based on rearranging these elements. (MPEP 21044.04 (VI)(C)).
I.) As noted above, Izawa renders all the elements of applicant’s claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Izawa renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Izawa renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites a humidity correction section performing humidity correction on a detection value of the reaction detection portion using detection values of the first compensation detection portion and the second compensation detection portion.
As noted above, Izawa teaches that resistance value of the metal oxide semiconductor gas sensor is influenced by the absolute humidity of the surrounding atmosphere, ambient temperature, and provides for humidity and ambient temperature sensing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide a section in Izawa that corrects the detection value of the semiconductor gas sensor for purpose of adjusting the gas sensor value on the basis of the measured humidity.
Therefore, Izawa renders applicant’s claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Izawa renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recite that the reaction detection portion is formed in a third formation area, and the third formation area is larger than either one of the first formation area and the second formation area and smaller than the other of the first formation area and the second formation area.
Izawa does not teach that the reaction detection portion is formed in a third formation area, and the third formation area is larger than either one of the first formation area and the second formation area and smaller than the other of the first formation area and the second formation area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Izawa to provide the semiconductor gas sensor in a third formation area, and have the third formation area larger than either one of the first formation area and the second formation area and smaller than the other of the first and second formation areas of the humidity and temperature sensors for purposes of providing the semiconductor gas sensor with sufficient room to contact a greater volume of a gas to be detected, over the space for measuring temperature and a smaller volume over the space for measuring humidity.
Therefore, Izawa renders applicant’s claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Izawa renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that a first distance between the detection element and the first compensation element and a second distance between the detection element and the second compensation element are substantially equal to each other.
Izawa does not teach that the distance between the semiconductor gas sensor, humidity sensor and temperature sensor are substantially equal to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the semiconductor gas sensor, humidity sensor and temperature sensor in any desired manner, including at distances substantially equal to each other absent a showing of criticality since the arrangement of parts is otherwise a matter of design choice. (MPEP 2144.04 IVI)(C)).
Therefore, Izawa renders claim 4 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Izawa renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that a line connecting a center position of the detection element, a center position of the first compensation element, and a center position of the second compensation element forms a substantially equilateral triangle.
Izawa does not teach that a line connecting a center position of the semiconductor gas sensor, humidity sensor and temperature sensor forms a substantially triangle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the semiconductor gas sensor, humidity sensor and temperature sensor in any desired manner, including having a line through the centers of each form a substantially equilateral triangle absent a showing of criticality since the arrangement of parts is otherwise a matter of design choice. (MPEP 2144.04 IVI)(C)).
Therefore, Izawa renders claim 5 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Izawa renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the cavity of the base member is an integrated cavity in which the detection element, the first compensation element, and the second compensation element are arranged above, an insulating-film first portion is a portion located at the first position of the first insulating film and/or the second insulating film, an insulating-film second portion is a portion located at the second position of the first insulating film and/or the second insulating film, an insulating-film third portion is a portion located at the third position of the first insulating film and/or the second insulating film, and the insulating-film first portion, the insulating-film second portion, and the insulating-film third portion form an integrated membrane connected to each other without a portion for being fixed to the cavity peripheral portion.
In Izawa providing the insulating films over a single cavity and the semiconductor gas sensor, humidity sensor and temperature sensor on the insulating films would provide “portions” of the insulating films that are integral with one another beneath each of the semiconductor gas sensor, humidity sensor and temperature sensor. Note “portions” of the insulating films read on any part or area of the insulating films.
Therefore, Izawa renders claim 6 obvious.
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Izawa.
As noted above, Izawa teaches a gas sensor in the form of a sensor chip having a cavity 6 over which a support film 8 supports a metal oxide semiconductor film 9. [0013] A moisture sensitivity film 14 is provided to measure humidity around the sensor chip. [0022] Ambient temperature is measured by a thermistor or the like. [0002]
Izawa teaches that resistance value of the metal oxide semiconductor gas sensor is influenced by the absolute humidity of the surrounding atmosphere, ambient temperature. [0002]
Izawa teaches a heater is provided on a support film provided on a cavity of a semiconductor substrate. [0007].
Izawa teaches that the heater or the like may be provided on a supporting film (not shown) provided on the cavity ([0014]) but does not teach first and second insulating films formed over the cavity between which the heater is provided, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to provide the heater between first and second insulating films formed over the cavity for purposes of being able to separately supply electric power to the heater than the semiconductor gas sensor.
Izawa’s semiconductor gas sensor reads on applicant’s detection element. Izawa’s “thermistor or the like” reads on one of applicant’s compensation elements, and Izawa’s moisture sensitive film reads on the other one of applicant’s compensation elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Izawa’s semiconductor gas sensor, thermistor of the like, and moisture sensitive film on the supporting layer over the cavity as a matter of design choice based on rearranging these elements. (MPEP 21044.04 (VI)(C)).
As for determining the concentration of gas, it would have been obvious to calculate a detection value of a “virtual” third compensation element assumed to be formed in the same third formation area as the semiconductor gas sensor and assumed to contain the dummy material, based on a detection value of the humidity sensor, the first formation area, a detection value of the temperature sensor, and the second formation area; and calculating a concentration of the predetermined gas based on a difference between the detection value of the semiconductor gas sensor and the detection value of the third compensation element, so as to adjust the value measured by the semiconductor gas sensor on the basis of the measured humidity level and temperature.
Therefore, Izawa renders claim 7 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/MICHAEL STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights