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 .
Summary
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1-9 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding the entire specification: All throughout the specification (approximately 70 times), the terms “piezo resistor,” “piezo-resistor,” and “piezoresistor” are used interchangeably. The correct term is --piezoresistor-- which should be used consistently. “Piezo-resistive” and “piezo resistive” should also be --piezoresistive--.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The art of making membrane pressure sensors with semiconductor manufacturing techniques and materials is established and mature. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SEMICONDUCTOR PRESSURE SENSOR WITH GROUPS OF ORTHOGONALLY ARRANGED PIEZORESISTORS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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(s) 1-9 is/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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4: Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting an essential element, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted element is the fact that the resistors are all piezoresistors. The detection of pressure comes from the electric signal based on the change in resistance of the piezoresistors which are bent and therefore change their resistance when the membrane is deformed. Not specifying the resistors as piezoresistors makes the claims meaningless in terms of detecting pressure. It also makes no sense to speak of resistors as orthogonal, as recited in claim 2, unless they are piezoresistors. Claims 2 and 4 also need all instances of “resistor” changed to --piezoresistor--.
Regarding claims 2-9: These changes are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KROG et al. (US 20080022779).
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, KROG discloses: A semiconductor pressure sensor (FIG. 1, inserted below with additional labeling) for measuring an external pressure exerted on the sensor (abstract), comprising: a membrane (4) as part of a semiconductor substrate (2) for being deformed due to the external pressure (para. 7), having a membrane edge (long sides 6 with unlabeled short sides at the top and bottom) and a membrane thickness (of thinned area of semiconductor substrate as discussed in para. 7); (Please note that FIG. 1 is not well-labeled in KROG therefore it is inserted with additional labels below. The first, second, third, and fourth resistor pairs are labeled as such. The first resistor of each pair is labeled Rf and is the top resistor of each pair. The second resistor of each pair is labeled Rs and is the bottom resistor for each pair. All further references to FIG. 1 will be to the annotated version below.) a first group of neighboring resistors (comprising the first pair and third pair in FIG. 1) comprising a first resistor pair (first pair) and a third resistor pair (third pair) and a second group of neighboring resistors (comprising the second pair and fourth pair) comprising a second resistor pair (second pair) and a fourth resistor pair (fourth pair); wherein the first resistor pair is located on or adjacent to the membrane edge (near left edge 6), and wherein the second resistor pair (second pair) is separated from the first resistor pair and located on or adjacent to the membrane edge (located on right edge 6); and wherein the third resistor pair is located at least partially outside of the membrane or at least partially on a zero stress zone of the membrane (third pair is located in the center of the membrane which is a zero stress zone), and the fourth resistor pair is positioned at least partially outside of the membrane or at least partially on a zero stress zone of the membrane (the fourth pair is located in the center of the membrane which is a zero stress zone); wherein the resistors of each resistor pair are orthogonal (FIG. 1 shows that each first resistor is orthogonal to each second resistor); and wherein a first resistor of the first resistor pair and a first resistor of the third resistor pair are connected in series (the top left two resistors) between a first bias node (12 is ground as shown in the circuit diagram in FIG. 7) and a first output node (8 is one side of the differential output Vout as shown in FIG. 7); a second resistor of the first resistor pair and a second resistor of the third resistor pair are connected in series (bottom left two resistors in FIG. 1) between a second output node (14) and the first bias node (12); a first resistor of the second resistor pair and a first resistor of the fourth resistor pair (top right two resistors) are connected in series between the first output node (8) and a second bias node (10); a second resistor of the second resistor pair and a second resistor of the fourth resistor pair (bottom right two resistors) are connected in series between the second output node (14) and the second bias node (10).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[FIG. 1 of KROG with added labels corresponding to claim 1]
Please note that the bridge circuit of KROG differs from that recited in claim 1 in that the positions of the bias nodes of KROG (10 and 12) are in the positions of the output nodes of claim 1 (This is Vinm and Vinp in FIG. 6 of the present application). Similarly the output nodes of KROG (8 and 14) are in the positions of the bias nodes of the present application (Vbridge and ground in FIG. 6 of the present application). However due to the symmetry of the bridge circuit, the symmetry of the piezoresistors, and the differential nature of the output, swapping these positions does not change the information gained from the output and is therefore an Obvious Rearrangement of Parts. Regarding the rearrangement of parts, MPEP 2144.04 VI C states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). However, “The mere fact that a worker in the art could rearrange the parts of the reference device to meet the terms of the claims on appeal is not by itself sufficient to support a finding of obviousness. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant’s specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device.” Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).
In the present case, the circuit will operate identically providing a differential output that will subtract out global stresses (such as package stress) that are acting equally on the center “zero-stress” zone and the high-stress membrane edge zone (as discussed in para. 7-9 of KROG and para. 20 and 53 of the specification of the present application as published) regardless of whether the nodes are positioned as in KROG or positioned as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2: As best understood KROG discloses: the first resistor of the first resistor pair and the first resistor of the third resistor (top left two resistors in FIG. 1) pair are orthogonal (FIG. 1), and wherein the first resistor of the second resistor pair and the first resistor of the fourth resistor pair (top right two resistors) are orthogonal (FIG. 1), and wherein the second resistor of the first resistor pair and the second resistor of the third resistor pair (bottom left resistors) are orthogonal (FIG. 1), and wherein the second resistor of the second resistor pair and the second resistor of the fourth resistor pair (bottom right two resistors) are orthogonal (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3: As best understood KROG discloses: the membrane has a square or rectangular shape (membrane 4 in FIG. 1 is rectangular).
Regarding claim 4: As best understood KROG discloses: the first group of neighboring resistors (the left four resistors in FIG. 1, that is the first pair and third pair) is arranged at a first side of the membrane (left side in FIG. 1) and wherein the second group of neighboring resistors (right four resistors, that is the second pair and fourth pair) is arranged at a second side of the membrane (right side in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 6: As best understood KROG discloses: the first side (left side of membrane 4 in FIG. 1) is opposite to the second side (right side of membrane 4).
Regarding claim 9: As best understood KROG discloses: a current difference between the first output node and the second output node is used as a measure of the pressure on the membrane (based on the measurement current Is in FIG. 7; para. 48).
This is different from the bridge circuit of claim 9 because KROG keeps a bias current constant (measurement current Is) whereas the present application keeps a bias voltage constant (Vbridge in FIG. 6). Because of the nature of Ohm’s Law (V=IR), when performing measurements on a direct current circuit, one skilled in the art is free to use changes in voltage or changes in current as the basis for measurement depending on the analog or digital components used to process the output signal. Therefore the use of one over the other is “Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results” (see MPEP 2143 B). Similar to the swapping of the output and bias nodes discussed above, using a bias current or a bias voltage will both result in a differential output that will subtract out global stresses (such as package stress) that are acting equally on the center “zero-stress” zone and the high-stress membrane edge zone (as discussed in para. 7-9 of KROG and para. 20 and 53 of the specification of the present application as published), regardless of whether a current difference is measured as in KROG or a voltage difference is measured as recited in claim 1.
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KROG in view of VAN DER WEIL (US 20150311353).
Regarding claims 5, 7, and 8: As best understood KROG does not disclose an embodiment where the first side is adjacent to the second side.
VAN DER WEIL however does teach embodiments where the groups of piezoresistors are located on adjacent sides (FIG. 14). Please note that VAN DER WEIL also teaches using bridge circuits and orthogonal piezoresistors to compensate for non-uniformity in using a semiconductor pressure sensor (abstract). VAN DER WEIL teaches many different embodiments including using a circular membrane (FIG. 14) where the first group and the second group have an angular separation of 90 degrees (FIG. 14), thus meeting the limitations of claims 7 and 8.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to locate the resistor groups of KROG on sides of the membrane next to each other as taught by VAN DER WEIL because “such a structure has a reduced sensitivity to the influence of uniform stress” (para. 28 of VAN DER WEIL).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Another reference by VAN DER WEIL (US 20160265999) also teaches groups of piezoresistors that are orthogonal and locating some on the edge of the membrane and some off the membrane to compensate for nonuniformities in pressure sensing. This reference also teaches the resistors being on adjacent or opposite sides and having rectangular or circular membranes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights