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 § 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) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzawa (US 20190049483 A1, hereinafter ‘483) in view of Ino (US 20070045787 A1).
As to claim 1, ‘483 teaches an inertial sensor apparatus comprising:
a base substrate 11; and
a stacked body 5 bonded to the base substrate by a first junction 18 (resin adhesive - ¶103),
the stacked body including
a first inertial sensor 20 that outputs a first detection signal (¶116),
a processing circuit 40 that drives (¶138) the first inertial sensor and that processes the first detection signal (¶116), and
a second junction 41 (resin adhesive - ¶137) that bonds the first inertial sensor to the processing circuit, the second junction being positioned between the first inertial sensor and the processing circuit,
a thermal conductivity of the second junction and a thermal conductivity of the first junction (the junctions inherently have respective thermal conductivities).
‘483 does not teach that a thermal conductivity of the second junction being higher than a thermal conductivity of the first junction.
Ino teaches, in one embodiment, a resin adhesive 31 (¶75) with a filler made of nickel for increasing the thermal conductivity of the resin adhesive (¶77-79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘483 such that the resin adhesive layer 18 is a resin adhesive with a filler made of nickel, for the benefit of providing an adhesive with a low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) so that the adhesive deforms only a small amount in response to temperature changes in order to suppress stress during the temperature changes (¶11 and ¶79-82 of Ino).
Ino further teaches, in a second embodiment, a resin adhesive 31 (¶75) with a filler made of silver for increasing the thermal conductivity of the resin adhesive (¶77-79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘483 as modified such that the resin adhesive layer 41 of ‘483 is a resin adhesive with a filler made of silver, for the benefit of providing an adhesive with a low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) so that the adhesive deforms only a small amount in response to temperature changes in order to minimize stress delivered to the inertial sensor during the temperature changes (¶11 and ¶79-82 of Ino).
‘483 as modified teaches wherein a thermal conductivity of the second junction (being made with silver in view of the second embodiment of Ino) is higher than a thermal conductivity of the first junction (made with nickel in view of the first embodiment of Ino; the Examiner notes that the thermal conductivity of silver is higher than the thermal conductivity of nickel).
If Applicant argues that ‘483 as modified still does not teach that a thermal conductivity of the second junction is higher than a thermal conductivity of the first junction,
Ino teaches wherein the thermal conductivity of the resin adhesive 31, in both the first and second embodiments, is a result effective variable (¶82).
The claim requires the thermal conductivity of the first junction to be in a range below the thermal conductivity of the second junction, and/or the claim requires the thermal conductivity of the second junction to be in a range higher than the thermal conductivity of the first junction. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘483 as modified such that the thermal conductivity of the first junction is in a range below the thermal conductivity of the second junction, and/or wherein the thermal conductivity of the second junction is in a range higher than the thermal conductivity of the first junction, since such modification(s) would have been obvious through routine experimentation when determining the optimal amounts of filler for one or both of the resin adhesive layers (additionally or alternatively, such modification(s) would provide the predictable result that stress from the adhesive layers during temperature changes is still successfully suppressed).
As to claim 2, ‘483 teaches wherein
the processing circuit is bonded (at least indirectly) to the base substrate by the first junction (additionally or alternatively, the processing circuit is bonded to the base substrate by the combination of the first and second junctions), and
the first inertial sensor is bonded to the processing circuit by the second junction (fig. 2A).
As to claim 3, ‘483 teaches wherein,
the first inertial sensor is bonded to the base substrate by the first junction, and
the processing circuit is bonded to the first inertial sensor by the second junction (fig. 2A).
As to claim 4, ‘483 as modified teaches wherein
a base material of the second junction is a resin 31a (Ino).
As to claim 5, ‘483 as modified teaches wherein
the second junction contains a filler (silver from Ino, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1), a thermal conductivity of the filler being higher than a thermal conductivity of the base material (¶79 of Ino teaches “the flakes 31b are added to the resin 31a such that their weight percentage in the resin 31a will be about 70 to 90%, for example. Using such resin 31a, it is possible to…increase the heat conductivity of the adhesive portion 31”; accordingly, a thermal conductivity of the filler is higher than a thermal conductivity of the base material, being the resin 31a of Ino).
The Examiner notes that claim 7 is rejected in independent form including the limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 7, ‘483 teaches an inertial sensor apparatus comprising:
a base substrate 11; and
a stacked body 5 bonded to the base substrate by a first junction 18 (resin adhesive - ¶103),
the stacked body including
a processing circuit 40, and
a third junction 41 for bonding a second inertial sensor 20 to the processing circuit 40.
‘483 does not teach a first inertial sensor that outputs a first detection signal,
wherein the processing circuit drives the first inertial sensor and processes the first detection signal,
a second junction that bonds the first inertial sensor to the processing circuit, the second junction being positioned between the first inertial sensor and the processing circuit,
a thermal conductivity of the second junction being higher than a thermal conductivity of the first junction,
wherein
the first inertial sensor is an angular velocity sensor.
[AltContent: textbox (J3)][AltContent: textbox (J2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
320
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘483 teaches, in a second embodiment, a first inertial sensor 300B (figs. 13A-B) that outputs a first detection signal (¶167),
wherein the processing circuit 40B drives the first inertial sensor 300B (¶167) and processes the first detection signal (¶167),
a second junction J2 (on the right side of fig. 13B above, the second junction being the same adhesive material 18B as a third junction J3 on the left side of fig. 13B above - ¶164) that bonds the first inertial sensor to the processing circuit, the second junction being positioned between the first inertial sensor and the processing circuit,
wherein
the first inertial sensor is an angular velocity sensor 300B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘483 to additionally have an angular velocity sensor as a first inertial sensor that outputs a first detection signal, wherein the processing circuit drives the first inertial sensor and processes the first detection signal, and a second junction (being the same material as the third junction) that bonds the first inertial sensor to the processing circuit, the second junction being positioned between the first inertial sensor and the processing circuit, as taught by the second embodiment of ‘483, for the benefit of increasing the usefulness of the apparatus since it can also detect angular velocities (¶167 – ‘483; additionally or alternatively, adding the angular velocity sensor increases user convenience since a separate overall sensor device would not be required for detecting angular velocity).
Ino teaches, in one embodiment, a resin adhesive 31 (¶75) with a filler made of nickel for increasing the thermal conductivity of the resin adhesive (¶77-79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘483 as modified such that the resin adhesive of layer 18 (fig. 2A of ‘483) is a resin adhesive with a filler made of nickel, for the benefit of providing an adhesive with a low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) so that the adhesive deforms only a small amount in response to temperature changes in order to suppress stress during the temperature changes (¶11 and ¶79-82 of Ino).
Ino further teaches, in a second embodiment, a resin adhesive 31 (¶75) with a filler made of silver for increasing the thermal conductivity of the resin adhesive (¶77-79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘483 as modified such that the resin adhesive of layer 41 of ‘483 (for the second and third junctions that are the same as each other in the modified ‘483) is a resin adhesive with a filler made of silver, for the benefit of providing an adhesive with a low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) so that the adhesive deforms only a small amount in response to temperature changes in order to minimize stress during the temperature changes (¶11 and ¶79-82 of Ino).
‘483 as modified teaches wherein a thermal conductivity of the second junction (being made with silver in view of the second embodiment of Ino) is higher than a thermal conductivity of the first junction (made with nickel in view of the first embodiment of Ino; the Examiner notes that the thermal conductivity of silver is higher than the thermal conductivity of nickel).
If Applicant argues that ‘483 as modified still does not teach that a thermal conductivity of the second junction is higher than a thermal conductivity of the first junction,
Ino teaches wherein the thermal conductivity of the resin adhesive 31, in both the first and second embodiments, is a result effective variable (¶82).
The claim requires the thermal conductivity of the first junction to be in a range below the thermal conductivity of the second junction, and/or the claim requires the thermal conductivity of the second junction to be in a range higher than the thermal conductivity of the first junction. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘483 as modified such that the thermal conductivity of the first junction is in a range below the thermal conductivity of the second junction, and/or wherein the thermal conductivity of the second junction is in a range higher than the thermal conductivity of the first junction, since such modification(s) would have been obvious through routine experimentation when determining the optimal amounts of filler for one or both of the resin adhesive materials (additionally or alternatively, such modification(s) would provide the predictable result that stress from the adhesive layers during temperature changes is still successfully suppressed).
As to claim 8, ‘483 teaches wherein
the angular velocity sensor 300B detects an angular velocity about a detection axis Z, the detection axis extending in a direction in which the first inertial sensor, the processing circuit, and the second junction are stacked in the stacked body (¶167).
As to claim 9, ‘483 as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except a second inertial sensor that outputs a second detection signal, the second inertial sensor being mounted on the processing circuit; and
a third junction that bonds the second inertial sensor to the processing circuit, the third junction being positioned between the second inertial sensor and the processing circuit,
a thermal conductivity of the third junction being higher than the thermal conductivity of the first junction.
‘483 teaches, in a second embodiment, a second inertial sensor 300B (figs. 13A-B) that outputs a second detection signal (¶167),
wherein the processing circuit 40B drives the second inertial sensor 300B (¶167) and processes a second detection signal (¶167),
a third junction J2 (on the right side of fig. 13B above, the third junction being the same adhesive material 18B as a second junction J3 on the left side of fig. 13B above - ¶164) that bonds the second inertial sensor to the processing circuit, the third junction being positioned between the second inertial sensor and the processing circuit, wherein the second inertial sensor is mounted on the processing circuit,
wherein
the second inertial sensor is an angular velocity sensor 300B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘483 to additionally have an angular velocity sensor as a second inertial sensor that outputs a second detection signal, wherein the processing circuit drives the second inertial sensor and processes the second detection signal, and a third junction (being the same material as the second junction) that bonds the second inertial sensor to the processing circuit, the third junction being positioned between the second inertial sensor and the processing circuit, and wherein the second inertial sensor is mounted on the processing circuit, as taught by the second embodiment of ‘483, for the benefit of increasing the usefulness of the apparatus since it can also detect angular velocities (¶167 – ‘483; additionally or alternatively, adding the angular velocity sensor increases user convenience since a separate overall sensor device would not be required for detecting angular velocity).
‘483 as modified teaches a thermal conductivity of the third junction being higher than the thermal conductivity of the first junction (as discussed above, the second and third junctions are made of the same material and the second junction has a higher thermal conductivity than the first junction).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘183 in view of Ino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosseini et al. (US 20140126165 A1, hereinafter Hosseini) and Sakaguchi (US 20040226373 A1).
As to claim 6, ‘483 as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein
a thickness of the second junction is smaller than a thickness of the first junction.
Hosseini teaches a substrate 140 (¶24) directly bonded to a component 110 having a nano-structured surface 120 on its bottom side, wherein the thickness of an adhesive layer between the substrate and the component is in the range of about 20 μm to about 30 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘483 a modified such that the component bonded directly to the substrate has a nano-structured surface on its bottom side, wherein the adhesive layer between the substrate and the component is in the range of about 20 μm to about 30 μm, as taught by Hosseini, for the benefit that stress mitigation may occur more efficiently (¶29 - Hosseini) and/or heat dissipation is improved during operation (¶30 – Hosseini) and/or the bond strength is increased (¶30 - Hosseini).
Sakaguchi teaches wherein the thickness of a resin adhesive layer 52 between an IC chip 20 and an inertial sensor chip 10 is 15 μm (¶26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘483 as modified such that the adhesive layer between the IC chip and the sensor chip is 15 μm, as taught by Sakaguchi, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of setting an adhesive layer thickness between an IC chip and a sensor chip for another for the predictable result that the IC chip is still successfully bonded on the sensor chip (additionally or alternatively, the adhesive layer thickness of Sakaguchi beneficially minimizes the temperature difference between the acceleration sensor chip and the IC chip under a practical power consumption - ¶15 of Sakaguchi).
‘483 as modified teaches wherein
a thickness (15 μm - Sakaguchi) of the second junction is smaller than a thickness (about 20 μm to about 30 μm - Hosseini) of the first junction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200274486 A1 teaches away from the claimed invention since bonding layer B1 between the sensor and a circuit component 4 is an insulator
US 20130320514 A1 teaches away from the claimed invention since bonding layer 180 between the sensor 140 and a circuit component 110 has a low thermal conductivity
US 20200274489 A1 teaches away from the concept of allowing heat to travel easily from a circuit component to a sensor component (¶52)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights