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 1-20 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.
The term “thin” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” 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.
Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1, therefore, the claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as to claim 1.
The term “thin” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” 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.
The term “thin” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” 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.
The term “thin” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” 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.
The term “thin” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” 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.
Claims 14-20 depend on claim 1, therefore, the claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as to claim 14.
The term “thin” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” 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.
The term “thin” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” 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.
For examination on the merits the claims will be interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dietmann et al. (US 2020/0374985) (hereinafter Dietmann).
Regarding claim 1, Dietmann teaches a sensor for measurements of thermal properties of a sample material, comprising: a casing comprising two layers joined together (5,5’) (see Fig. 1), wherein respective layers of the two layers of the casing comprise ribbon ceramic (tape casting) (see paragraphs 0026, 0029, 0070-0071); and a heating element (7) provided between the two layers (5,5’) (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0072-0073).
Regarding claim 2, Dietmann further teaches the ribbon ceramic comprises alumina ribbon ceramic (Al2O3) (see paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 10, Dietmann further teaches wherein the respective layers each comprise ribbon ceramic (see paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 13, Dietmann teaches a method of manufacturing a sensor for measurements of thermal properties of a sample material, comprising: providing a heating element (7) between two layers (5,5’) to be joined together, wherein respective layers of the two layers comprise ribbon ceramic (tape casting) (see paragraphs 0026, 0029, 0070-0071); and joining the two layers (5,5’) to form a casing surrounding the heating element (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0072-0073).
Regarding claim 15, Dietmann further teaches wherein the ribbon ceramic comprises alumina ribbon ceramic (Al2O3) (see paragraphs 0070).
Regarding claim 16, Dietmann further teaches wherein: the respective layers each comprise ribbon ceramic (see paragraph 0029)
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietmann in view of Kneezel et al. (US 2004/0012662) (hereinafter Kneezel).
Regarding claim 3, Dietmann teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Dietmann does not explicitly teach wherein the heating element is deposited onto an inner surface of a first layer of the two layers of the casing by sputtering a metallic seed layer and electro-plating a conductor onto the metallic seed layer.
Kneezel teaches the heating element (32) is deposited onto an inner surface of a first layer (30) of the two layers of the casing by sputtering a metallic seed layer (32a) and electro-plating a conductor (32b) onto the metallic seed layer (see paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sensor as taught by Dietmann wherein the heating element is deposited onto an inner surface of a first layer of the two layers of the casing by sputtering a metallic seed layer and electro-plating a conductor onto the metallic seed layer as taught by Kneezel. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a strong adhesion of the heating elements to the first layer.
Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 17, Dietmann teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
However, Dietmann does not explicitly teach wherein providing the heating element between the two layers to be joined together comprises depositing the heating element on an inner surface of a first layer by sputtering a metallic seed layer and electro-plating a conductor onto the metallic seed layer.
Kneezel teaches providing the heating element (32) between the two layers to be joined together comprises depositing the heating element on an inner surface of a first layer (30) by sputtering a metallic seed layer (32a) and electro-plating a conductor (32b) onto the metallic seed layer (see paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method as taught by Dietmann wherein providing the heating element between the two layers to be joined together comprises depositing the heating element on an inner surface of a first layer by sputtering a metallic seed layer and electro-plating a conductor onto the metallic seed layer as taught by Kneezel. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a strong adhesion of the heating elements to the first layer.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietmann in view of Kneezel and in further view of Hurwitz et al. (US 2015/0294896) (hereinafter Hurwitz).
Regarding claim 4, Dietmann in view of Kneezel teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches the conductor is nickel (see Kneezel; paragraph 0024).
However, Dietmann as modified by Kneezel does not explicitly teach the metallic seed layer is titanium.
Hurwitz teaches the metallic seed layer is titanium (see paragraph 0106).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sensor as taught by the prior combination with the metallic seed layer being a titanium as taught by Hurwitz. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide an excellent adhesion promoter between the first layer material and the subsequently deposited metal/nickel layer as known in the art.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 5-7and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietmann in view of Ishii et al. (US 5804083) (hereinafter Ishii).
Regarding claim 5, Dietmann teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Dietmann does not explicitly an inner surface of a first layer of the two layers of the casing is covered with an adhesive, and the heating element is placed on the adhesive.
Ishii teaches an inner surface of a first layer of the two layers of the casing is covered with an adhesive, and the heating element is placed on the adhesive (see col 9, L. 14-25).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sensor as taught by Dietmann with an inner surface of a first layer of the two layers of the casing is covered with an adhesive, and the heating element is placed on the adhesive as taught by Ishii. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to make this combination in order to provide a fast and cost-effective bonding solution between the two layers and the heating elements.
Regarding claim 6, Dietmann in view of Ishii teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches the heating element comprises nickel placed on the adhesive (see Ishii; col. 9, L. 14-25).
Regarding claim 7, Dietmann in view of Ishii teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches an inner surface of a second layer of the two layers of the casing is covered with the adhesive and joined to the first layer and the heating element (see Ishii; col. 9, L. 14-25).
Regarding claim 18, Dietmann teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
However, Dietmann does not explicitly teach wherein providing the heating element between the two layers comprises covering an inner surface of a first layer with an adhesive, and placing the heating element on the adhesive.
Ishii teaches wherein providing the heating element between the two layers comprises covering an inner surface of a first layer with an adhesive, and placing the heating element on the adhesive (see col 9, L. 14-25).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method as taught by Dietmann wherein providing the heating element between the two layers comprises covering an inner surface of a first layer with an adhesive, and placing the heating element on the adhesive as taught by Ishii. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to make this combination in order to provide a fast and cost-effective bonding solution between the two layers and the heating elements.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietmann in view of Islam (US 4400870) (hereinafter Islam).
Regarding claim 8, Dietmann teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Dietmann does not explicitly teach the two layers are fused together using a laser.
Islam teaches the two layers are fused together using a laser (see Abstract and col. 1, L. 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor as taught by Dietmann wherein the two layers are fused together using a laser as taught by Islam. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to enable the formation of a hermetic seal at a relatively low temperature thereby greatly reducing the thermal stress on the sensor with resulting improvement in yields.
Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 14, Dietmann teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
However, Dietmann does not explicitly teach joining the two layers to form the casing comprises fusing the two layers together using a laser.
Islam teaches joining the two layers to form the casing comprises fusing the two layers together using a laser (see Abstract and col. 1, L. 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Dietmann wherein joining the two layers to form the casing comprises fusing the two layers together using a laser as taught by Islam. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to enable the formation of a hermetic seal at a relatively low temperature thereby greatly reducing the thermal stress on the sensor with resulting improvement in yields.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietmann in view of Shashidhar (US 2021/0125869) (hereinafter Shashidhar).
Regarding claim 9, Dietmann teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Dietmann does not explicitly teach wherein the respective layers of ribbon ceramic or thin glass are each less than 100 micrometers thick.
Shashidhar teaches the respective layers of ribbon ceramic are each less than 100 micrometers thick (“the ceramic substrate 16 has a thickness of 40 μm”; see paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide sensor as taught by Dietmann wherein the respective layers of ribbon ceramic are each less than 100 micrometers thick as taught by Shashidhar. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide the sensor with a compact design.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Dietmann teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
However, Dietmann does not explicitly teach wherein the respective layers of ribbon ceramic or thin glass are each less than 100 micrometers thick.
Shashidhar teaches the respective layers of ribbon ceramic are each less than 100 micrometers thick (“the ceramic substrate 16 has a thickness of 40 μm”; see paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method as taught by Dietmann wherein the respective layers of ribbon ceramic are each less than 100 micrometers thick as taught by Shashidhar. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide the sensor with a compact design.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietmann in view of Smith et al. (US 2004/0055699) (hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 11, Dietmann does not explicit wherein the respective layers each comprise thin glass.
Smith teaches thin glass (see paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the each of the respective layers as taught by Dietmann with thin glass as taught by Smith. One would be motivated to make this combination because thin glass material is highly scalable, allows for extremely flat construction and reduced warpage in semiconductor manufacturing.
Regarding claim 12, Dietmann teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the respective layers comprise a first layer comprising ribbon ceramic (tape casting) (see paragraphs 0026, 0029, 0070-0071).
Smith teaches thin glass (see paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the each of the respective layers as taught by Dietmann with thin glass as taught by Smith. One would be motivated to make this combination because thin glass material is highly scalable, allows for extremely flat construction and reduced warpage in semiconductor manufacturing..
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietmann in view of Ishii as applied to claim 18 above, in further view of Lorenz et al. (US 4910388) (hereinafter Lorenz).
Regarding claim 19, Dietmann as modified by Ishii teaches all the limitations of claim 18.
However, Dietmann as modified by Ishii does not explicitly teach covering an inner surface of a second layer with the adhesive, before joining the first and second layers.
Lorenz teaches covering an inner surface of a second layer (10b) with the adhesive (14b), before joining the first (20b) and second layers (10b) (see col. 7, L. 46 through col. 8, L.10).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method a taught by the prior combination with covering an inner surface of a second layer with the adhesive, before joining the first and second layers as taught by Lorenz. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a fast and cost-effective bonding solution between the first and second layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE M SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-7707. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/JANICE M SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights