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 9-11 and 13-15 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.
Claims 9-11 recite the limitation "the cap" multiple times. The antecedent basis for this limitation is not clear. Does “the cap” refer only to “a capping wafer” as recited in claim 9? Does “the cap” refer to a component that comprises the capping wafer as well as other things attached to the capping wafer? Due to the different possible interpretations, claims 9-11 are rejected for being indefinite. Claims 13-15 are rejected for the above reason by virtue of their claim dependency.
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, 3, 5, 9, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (JP 2020-095035 A). in view of Tortschanoff et al. (US 2020/0284721; hereinafter Tortschanoff).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Iwasaki discloses a method with a corresponding device, comprising the steps of providing a semiconductor-based device wafer (120); fabricating a plurality of photonic infrared (par. 23) sensor parts comprising micro- (pars. 34-35) and/or nanostructures (12/14) on different device areas on a device side of the device wafer (fig. 9); providing a capping wafer (130; fig. 8c) comprising a first side and a second side and a plurality of gaps on the first side; attaching the first side of the capping wafer (130) on the device side of the device wafer (120) with each sensor part (14) arranged below; wherein the capping wafer (130) is attached to the device wafer (120) in contact areas (140) arranged at a periphery, wherein the capping wafer comprises at least one gas permeable section (with 311), with gas permeable material (fig. 2; pars. 13, 52, 67, and 85), between a gap and the second side, to provide a gas passage between the gap and the environment surrounding the sensor device, wherein the method further comprises steps of: applying a protective layer (par. 85) on all gas permeable sections (311) of the capping wafer (130), dividing the device wafer and the attached capping wafer into individual sensor devices (par. 85), wherein the contact areas completely enclose each gap after the step of dividing such that gas exchange is possible only through the gas permeable material of the capping wafer (fig. 2; pars. 13, 52, 67, and 85), and removing the protective layer from all gas permeable sections (par. 85).
However, Iwasaki fails to disclose providing a capping wafer with a recess (instead of a gap), attaching the first side of the capping wafer on the device side of the device wafer with each sensor part arranged below a recess such that a cavity is formed between each recess and the device wafer; wherein the capping wafer is in contact with the device wafer in contact areas arranged at a periphery of the recess.
Tortschanoff teaches providing a capping wafer (110-1) with a recess (par. 39), attaching the first side of the capping wafer (110-1) on the device side of the device wafer (110-2) with each sensor part (150) arranged below a recess such that a cavity (120) is formed between each recess and the device wafer (110-2); wherein the capping wafer is in contact with the device wafer in contact areas arranged at a periphery of the recess (fig. 1a: at the edges of wafer around 120).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Iwasaki with the teaching of Tortschanoff, since these wafer and recess configurations were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute (Tortschanoff: par. 39 and figs. 1a-5). One would have been motivated to make such a modification for reduced fabrication requirements (Tortschanoff: par. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Iwasaki discloses wherein the capping wafer is semiconductor-based and comprises gas permeable sections (fig. 2; pars. 13, 52, 67, and 85).
Regarding claim 5, Iwasaki discloses wherein the step of applying a protective layer on all gas permeable sections comprises applying a protective layer covering the second side of the capping wafer (fig. 2; pars. 13, 52, 67, and 85).
Regarding claim 11, Iwasaki discloses wherein the cap is semiconductor-based and comprises at least one gas permeable section (fig. 2; pars. 13, 52, 67, and 85).
Regarding claim 15, Iwasaki discloses wherein the photonic infrared sensor part comprising micro- and/or nanostructures are photonic gas sensor parts (fig. 2; pars. 13, 23, 52, 67, and 85).
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) 2, 6-8, 10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki and Tortschanoff as applied to claims 1, 5, and 9 above, and further in view of Elian et al. (US 2010/0230766; hereinafter Elian).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Iwasaki as modified above suggests claims 1 and 9.
However, Iwasaki fails to disclose wherein the capping wafer is made entirely of a gas permeable material.
Elian teaches wherein the capping wafer is made entirely of a gas permeable material (pars. 2, 23, 38, 40, and 50-51; for permitting access to a gas to be detected to an internal detection volume of a sensor device and preventing the ingress of liquid).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Iwasaki with the teaching of Elian, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for taking into account special requirements in the design for application purposes (Elian: par. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Elian teaches wherein the gas permeable material consists of a porous material (pars. 2, 23, 38, 40, and 50-51; for permitting access to a gas to be detected to an internal detection volume of a sensor device and preventing the ingress of liquid).
Regarding claim 7, Elian teaches wherein the porous material has a hydrophobic surface (par. 51).
Regarding claim 8, Iwasaki discloses wherein the sensors comprising micro- and/or nanostructures are photonic gas sensors (fig. 2; pars. 13, 52, 67, and 85).
Regarding claim 13, Elian teaches wherein the gas permeable material consists of a porous material (pars. 2, 23, 38, 40, and 50-51; for permitting access to a gas to be detected to an internal detection volume of a sensor device and preventing the ingress of liquid).
Regarding claim 14, Elian teaches wherein the porous material has a hydrophobic surface (par. 51).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights