DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 6.29.26. Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
The Applicant has made amendments to claims 2-3 and added new dependents 11-13 which will be examined below.
Claim objections from previous Office action w.r.t claims 2-10,10 are withdrawn in light of arguments.
35 U.S.C.112(b) rejection of Claims 2-3 are withdrawn in light of amendment “different”.
Specification objection from previous Office action w.r.t descriptive title is withdrawn in light of Title amendment.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides arguments to which the
Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: In other words, Oda's second dielectric protective film 10 is simply the remaining portions of the blanket-deposited films after the slits are cut. The lateral edges of Oda's supports are the bare cut faces of those blanket films. There is no separate layer deposited on or applied to those lateral edges.
Examiner Response 1: Instant Claim 1 is a product claim and Examiner is only comparing structure of Oda with instant claim as recited and is unable to read specification or argument into the claim. The argument regarding “no separate layer” is moot because there are no claim limitations that clarify the “separate layer” from a structure perspective to distinguish over Oda. Claim only recites “a lateral encapsulation layer for the holding arms arranged in contact with lateral edges of said holding arm” which is sufficiently met as shown in previous Office action. Argument regarding “remaining portions” is also not relevant as mentioned above as claim 1 is not not a method claim .
Applicant Argument 2: Oda uses a polyimide sacrificial layer that is removed by oxygen plasma ashing, not a silicon oxide sacrificial layer removed by hydrofluoric acid etching. As Oda discloses, "[a] polyimide film is packed as a sacrificial layer into cavity 4 in a fabrication step to be described hereinbelow, but as the final stage of the fabrication process, this polyimide film is removed by, for example, ashing by an oxygen plasma." Oda, paragraph [0071]. There is no HF etching step anywhere in Oda's fabrication process, and therefore no motivation or need for HF-resistant lateral encapsulation, and no implementation of HF-resistant lateral encapsulation.
Examiner Response 2: Claim 1 is a product claim and as agreed Oda does suggest in Para 0075 the possibility of element 10 being made of silicon carbide film. Silicon carbide inherently has the property of being resistant to acids which includes hydrofluoric acid. A quick internet search reveals for e.g.,research paper “Corrosion of ceramic silicon carbide in hydrofluoric acid” which confirms Examiner’s position(www.researchgate.net/publication/363436729_CORROSION_OF_CERAMIC_SILICON_CARBIDE_IN_HYDROFLUORIC_ACID). Argument regarding motivation is moot as Examiner is comparing the structure that includes materials of primary reference Oda with claim as recited.
Applicant Argument 3: The claim recites a lateral encapsulation layer that is HF-resistant "so as to form, with the support layer and the upper encapsulation layer of the holding arms, an encapsulation hermetic to etching based on hydrofluoric acid." This functional requirement - forming a hermetic encapsulation against HF with three cooperating layers (the support layer, the upper encapsulation layer, and the lateral encapsulation layer) - is entirely absent from Oda's teachings, while still imparting a structural requirement to the claims
Examiner Response 3: Claim 1 is a product claim and above argument Examiner believes is suitable for a method claim. As responded above, Oda’s suggested possibility of SiC inherently protects it from all acids including hydrofluoric acid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oda (US20010010360A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Oda discloses an infrared imaging microbolometer (Figs 7-10) integrating a membrane (7,37,36,13,9,32,33) mounted in suspension above substrate (1) by means of holding arms (6a) attached to anchor nails (6b), the microbolometer comprising:
a support layer (32) extending within the membrane and holding arms;
electrodes (13) arranged on the support layer and in contact with the anchor nails (6b)[Para 0070 discloses “Electrodes 13 and contact pads 11 are therefore electrically connected via metal wiring 9 in support 6”], each electrode extending (13 and 9 are connected) within a holding arm;
a thermoresistive material (7) arranged within the membrane in electric contact (Fig 8) with the electrodes (13); and
at least an upper encapsulation layer (10U, 37) for the holding arms (6a) and the thermoresistive material (7);
wherein the microbolometer also comprises a lateral encapsulation layer (10L extends laterally in Fig 10 and laterally can be any direction) for the holding arms arranged in contact with lateral edges (Fig 9) of said holding arms (33 from 6b extends into 6a in Fig 10), said lateral encapsulation layer being resistant to etching based on hydrofluoric acid so as to form, with the support layer and the upper encapsulation layer of the holding arms, an encapsulation hermetic to etching based on hydrofluoric acid [Para 0075 discloses “dielectric protective film 10 may be a silicon oxide film, a silicon oxynitride film, a silicon carbide film” which is same as instant specification Para 0065 “silicon carbide”] (See Examiner Response 2 above in Response to Argument Section).
.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
512
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
448
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
532
772
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Oda discloses an infrared imaging microbolometer according to claim 1. Oda further discloses wherein the upper encapsulation layer (10U) of the holding arms (6a) and the lateral encapsulation layer (10L) of the holding arms are of different natures (In Fig 9, 10U is wider than 10L due to rectangular crosssection of 9).
Regarding Claim 3, Oda discloses an infrared imaging microbolometer according to claim 1. Oda further discloses wherein the upper encapsulation layer (10U) of the holding arms (6a) and the lateral encapsulation layer (10L) of the holding arms (6a) have distinct thicknesses (claim limitation does not specify direction of thickness and therefore thickness given 3 dimensional nature of 10 can be measured into the page in Fig10 which will make it different).
Regarding Claim 5, Oda discloses an infrared imaging microbolometer according to claim 1. Oda further discloses wherein the lateral encapsulation layer (10L) of the holding arms (6a) and the upper encapsulation layer (10U) of the holding arms are made of an amorphous alloy with a high content of silicon or boron, of aluminum oxide, of aluminum nitride, of silicon carbide, or of boron carbide [Para 0075 discloses “dielectric protective film 10 may be a silicon oxide film, a silicon oxynitride film, a silicon carbide film”].
Regarding Claim 6, Oda discloses an infrared imaging microbolometer according to claim 1. Oda further discloses wherein the microbolometer also comprises: a lower resistive layer (33L) arranged between the support layer (32) and the electrodes (13); and an upper resistive layer (a layered portion of 37 which can be 37U) arranged between the electrodes (13) and the upper encapsulation layer (remaining 37) of the holding arms (6a); the lower and upper resistive layers being in continuity (Fig 10, Co where 37U and 33L are in contact through Co) with each other between ends (13E1,13E2) of the electrodes (13) extending within the membrane (Fig 10), thereby forming an insulating barrier between the electrodes, thus enabling to increase the surface area of the electrodes extending within the membrane (structure as recited is the same, therefore function is inherent. Further “enabling to increase the surface area” is relative and broad).
Regarding Claim 7, Oda discloses an infrared imaging microbolometer according to claim 6. Oda further discloses wherein the lower (33L) and upper resistive layers (37U) have an electric resistivity greater than 10.sup.4 Ohm.Math.cm [0097 discloses 37 made of silicon nitride, 0091 discloses 33 made of silicon nitride and resistivity of SiN2 is inherently orders of magnitude higher than 104 Ohm cm].
Regarding Claim 8, Oda discloses an infrared imaging microbolometer according to claim 6. Oda further discloses wherein the lower (33L) and upper resistive layers (37U) are made of hafnium dioxide, of silicon nitride [0097,0091], of silicon oxide, of silicon oxynitride, of boron nitride, of aluminum nitride, of silicon carbide, of silicon carbonitride, of silicon boride, of silicon oxyboride, of silicon boronitride, of silicon borocarbide, or of silicon oxycarbide.
Regarding Claim 9, Oda discloses an infrared imaging microbolometer according to claim 1. Oda further discloses wherein the thermoresistive material (7) is made of an amorphous alloy having a high content of silicon, of vanadium oxide, of titanium oxide, or of nickel oxide[Para 0074 discloses Vanadium oxide].
Regarding Claim 10, Oda discloses an infrared imaging microbolometer according to claim 1. Oda further discloses wherein the electrodes (13) are made of metal, selected from a group comprising titanium, copper, chromium, cobalt, and aluminum [Para 0074 discloses “Electrodes 13 are composed of titanium”].
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 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.
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Oda.
Regarding Claim 4, Oda discloses an infrared imaging microbolometer according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lateral encapsulation layer of the holding arms comprises a lug protruding from the upper encapsulation layer of the holding arms by at least 10 nanometers.
Oda further discloses wherein the lateral encapsulation layer (10L) of the holding arms (6a) comprises a lug protruding from the upper encapsulation layer of the holding arms by at least 10 nanometers [Para 0076 discloses 10 is formed and constituted by 32,33,37 and will inherently have some waviness in surface which can be approaching at least 10nm which is a small value out of total (500nm thick Para0075) can be called a lug. Further Specification does not recite any special characteristics related to this lug][MPEP2144.05(I)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed infrared imaging microbolometer of Oda with protruding lug as further taught by Oda in order to allow for surface variation due to the forming of the encapsulation layer.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Oda in view of Boudou et al(FR3098904A1 English translation), hereinafter Boudou.
Regarding Claim 11, Oda discloses an infrared imaging microbolometer (Figs 7-10) integrating a membrane (7,37,36,13,9,32,33) mounted in suspension above substrate (1) by means of holding arms (6a) attached to anchor nails (6b), the microbolometer comprising:
a support layer (32) extending within the membrane and holding arms;
electrodes (13) arranged on the support layer and in contact with the anchor nails (6b)[Para 0070 discloses “Electrodes 13 and contact pads 11 are therefore electrically connected via metal wiring 9 in support 6”], each electrode extending (13 and 9 are connected) within a holding arm;
a thermoresistive material (7) arranged within the membrane in electric contact (Fig 8) with the electrodes (13); and
at least an upper encapsulation layer (10U, 37) for the holding arms (6a) and the thermoresistive material (7); and
a lateral encapsulation layer (10L extends laterally in Fig 10 and laterally can be any direction) for the holding arms arranged in contact with lateral edges (Fig 9) of said holding arms (33 from 6b extends into 6a in Fig 10), said lateral encapsulation layer having a thickness (Fig 9) but does not explicitly disclose in the range from 5 to 50 nanometers.
Boudou discloses (Para 0038 discloses “For example, with this embodiment, 7 the thickness of the layers constituting the stack may be 10 nanometers for the lower, central and upper dielectrics, and 7 nanometers for the layer of absorber material, such that the total thickness of the support arms is equal to 37 nanometers”) thickness in the range of 5 to 50 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed infrared imaging microbolometer of Oda with total thickness of support arms in the range of 5 to 50 nanometers as taught by Boudou in order to reduce suspended mass while at the same time providing mechanical stability.
Regarding Claim 12, Oda in view of Boudou discloses the infrared imaging microbolometer according to claim 11. Oda in view of Boudou further discloses wherein the lateral encapsulation layer (Oda,10L extends laterally in Fig 10 and laterally can be any direction) is resistant to etching based on hydrofluoric acid so as to form, with the support layer and the upper encapsulation layer of the holding arms, an encapsulation hermetic to etching based on hydrofluoric acid [Para 0075 discloses “dielectric protective film 10 may be a silicon oxide film, a silicon oxynitride film, a silicon carbide film” which is same as instant specification Para 0065 “silicon carbide”](See Examiner Response 2 above in Response to Argument Section).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 13 recites “The infrared imaging microbolometer according to claim 1, wherein the lateral encapsulation layer of the holding arms has a thickness, measured parallel to the plane of the substrate, in the range from 5 to 50 nanometers”. Examiner interprets “plane” based on Para0064 and Para0085 which provide structural relationship for “lateral encapsulation layer”. In Oda, there is no explicit disclosure of lateral encapsulation layer thickness interpreted as 10L by Examiner . Further, in light of Applicant argument “The lateral edges of Oda's supports are the bare cut faces of those blanket films. There is no separate layer deposited on or applied to those lateral edges” gets further strengthened with claim 13 limitations. Therefore Claim 13 is allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights