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 1-16 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 claim 1, the claim limitation “the first thermopile is configured to connect selectively to the second thermopile in series and anti-series” is indefinite insofar as the examiner is unclear about the structure of “the first thermopile is configured to connect selectively to the second thermopile in series and anti-series” and it is impossible to determine the intending scope of the structure of “the first thermopile is configured to connect selectively to the second thermopile in series and anti-series” in claim 1. Paragraph 0047 of the specification defines “anti-series” as being connected in series “such that the polarity is…opposite.” Therefore being connected in series and anti-series could mean: (1) being connected in series with reversed polarity of the thermopiles, however this renders the “series” claim language redundant and is not the plain text reading of the claim; or (2) the thermopiles are connected in series with both the same and opposite polarities, this interpretation is the plain text reading but introduces a contradiction. Therefore, it is indefinite.
Also, dependent Claims 2-16 are rejected by virtue of its dependency.
For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reading “the first thermopile is configured to connect selectively to the second thermopile in series or anti-series.”
Regarding claim 12, the claim limitation “wherein a first number of thermocouples of the first thermopile between the hot junction on the infrared absorbing membrane and the at least one of the number of cold junctions of the first beam is greater than a second number of thermocouples of the first thermopile between the hot junction on infrared absorbing membrane and the at least one of the another number of cold junctions of the second beam” is indefinite insofar as the examiner is unclear about the structure of the claim and it is impossible to determine the intending scope of the structure of claim 12. Claim 1 specifies that that the first thermopile is the plurality of thermocouples which are disposed on the first beam and the membrane wherein the first cold junction is formed at one end of the first beam. Claim 12 recites “a second number of thermocouples of the first thermopile between the hot junction on infrared absorbing membrane and the at least one of the another number of cold junctions of the second beam.” However, according to claim 1, the thermocouples of the first thermopile are all disposed on the first beam and thermally connected to the junction of the first beam, not the second beam. Additionally, it is unclear how an abstract grouping provides any additional structural limitation. Consider the case where the first thermopile comprises six thermocouples. We could abstractly say that the first four thermocouples are greater than the second two thermocouples, but that provides no additional structural limitation. Therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one of the number of cold junctions." Claim 1 recites a first substrate cold junction and a second substrate cold junction, not a cold junction. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the claim limitation “wherein a first number of thermocouples of the second thermopile between the hot junction on the infrared absorbing membrane and the at least one of the another number of cold junctions of the second beam is greater than a second number of thermocouples of the second thermopile between the hot junction on the infrared absorbing membrane and the at least one of the number of cold junctions of the first beam” is indefinite insofar as the examiner is unclear about the structure of the claim and it is impossible to determine the intending scope of the structure of claim 13. Claim 1 specifies that that the second thermopile is the plurality of thermocouples which are disposed on the second beam and the membrane wherein the second cold junction is formed at one end of the second beam. Claim 13 recites “a second number of thermocouples of the second thermopile between the hot junction on the infrared absorbing membrane and the at least one of the number of cold junctions of the first beam.” However, according to claim 1, the thermocouples of the second thermopile are all disposed on the second beam and thermally connected to the junction of the second beam, not the first beam. Additionally, it is unclear how an abstract grouping provides any additional structural limitation. Consider the case where the second thermopile comprises six thermocouples. We could abstractly say that the first four thermocouples are greater than the second two thermocouples, but that provides no additional structural limitation. Therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the at least one of the another number of cold junctions." Claim 1 recites a first substrate cold junction and a second substrate cold junction, not a cold junction. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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 1-8, 10-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maes et al. US 2017/0003172.
Regarding claim 1, Maes discloses a thermal sensor element (figs. 2-4 and 6-9) device comprising: a substrate (1) having a cavity (3) formed therein (fig. 2); and an infrared absorbing membrane (4; para. 0055) suspended over the cavity (fig. 2; membrane 4 is over cavity 3a) from a first beam (5) and a second beam (5), the first beam being thermally coupled at one end thereof to the substrate at a first substrate cold junction (fig. 4) and the second beam being thermally coupled at one end thereof to the substrate at a second substrate cold junction (fig. 4); and a plurality of thermocouples (6; fig. 5a; para. 0063) disposed over the first and second beams (para. 0061; “arranged on” is equivalent to “disposed over” the beam) and the infrared absorbing membrane (fig. 4); wherein the plurality of thermocouples is arranged on the first and second beams and the infrared absorbing membrane as a first thermopile and a second thermopile (para. 0058); the first and second thermopiles are arranged on the infrared absorbing membrane (fig. 4) to measure, when in use, a sum of first temperature differentials and second temperature differentials, the first temperature differentials being between the first substrate cold junction and a hot junction on the infrared absorbing membrane, and the second temperature differentials being between the second substrate cold junction and the hot junction on the infrared absorbing membrane (para. 0058-0059); and the first thermopile is configured to connect selectively to the second thermopile in series and anti-series (para. 0082-0089).
Regarding claim 2, Maes discloses wherein the infrared absorbing membrane comprises hot junctions of the plurality of thermocouples (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Maes discloses wherein each of the first thermopile and the second thermopile is respectively configured to measure, when in use, a summation of temperature differentials in respect of a first region of the infrared absorbing membrane and a second region of the infrared absorbing membrane (fig. 4; para. 0058).
Regarding claim 4, Maes discloses wherein a number of the hot junctions (fig. 4 hot junction) and a number of cold junctions (fig. 4; cold junction) of the plurality of thermocouples are configured so as to provide the first thermopile between the plurality of hot junctions and the number of cold junctions (para. 0058; the thermocouple legs are between the hot and cold junctions); another number of the hot junctions (fig. 4 hot junction) and another number of cold junctions (fig. 4; cold junction) of the plurality of thermocouples are configured so as to provide the second thermopile between the plurality of hot junctions and the another number of cold junctions (para. 0058; the thermocouple legs are between the hot and cold junctions); at least one of the number of cold junctions is located at a first end of the first beam distal from the infrared absorbing membrane (fig. 4); and at least one of the another number of cold junctions is located at a second end of the second beam distal from the infrared absorbing membrane (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Maes discloses wherein the summation of the first and second temperature differentials is measured between the number of cold junctions and the number of hot junctions (para. 0058).
Regarding claim 6, Maes discloses wherein at least a portion of each of the hot junctions is configured to converge within a predetermined hot end region of the infrared absorbing membrane (fig. 4; hot junction converge in dark shaded region of Thot/membrane 4).
Regarding claim 7, Maes discloses wherein the hot junctions of the thermocouples comprise interconnections in the predetermined hot end region of the infrared absorbing membrane (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Maes discloses wherein the first beam comprises a narrow track portion that extends towards the infrared absorbing membrane (figs. 7-9; dark shaded region being membrane) and integrally forms a portion of the infrared absorbing membrane (fig. 2; para. 0001, 0053); and the second beam comprises a narrow track portion that extends towards the infrared absorbing membrane (figs. 7-9; dark shaded region being membrane) and integrally forms another portion of the infrared absorbing membrane (fig. 2; para. 0001, 0053).
Regarding claim 10, Maes discloses wherein the plurality of thermocouples is an even number of thermocouples (para. 0085; at least two includes embodiments of an even number, i.e. two).
Regarding claim 11, Maes discloses wherein the first beam bridges the substrate and a first side of the infrared absorbing membrane (fig. 2); and the second beam bridges the substrate and a second side of the infrared absorbing membrane (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Maes discloses a thermal sensor array device comprising the thermal sensor element device according to claim 1 (para. 0002, abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Maes discloses a method of measuring a temperature gradient over a thermal sensor device of an array of thermal sensor devices (para. 0002, abstract), the method comprising: providing an array of thermal sensor devices comprising the thermal sensor device according to claim 1 (see claim 1); receiving infrared electromagnetic radiation incident upon the thermal sensor device (para. 0054); connecting the first thermopile to the second thermopile (para. 0058) in anti-series (para. 0085-0089); measuring a difference value in respect of the received infrared electromagnetic radiation constituting the temperature gradient (para. 0057-0058); and storing the temperature gradient measured (para. 0057-0058; calculating the temperature gradient implies a memory for storing the calculation).
Regarding claim 16, Maes discloses a method of measuring a temperature, the method comprising: measuring the temperature gradient according to claim 15 (see claim 15); connecting the first thermopile to the second thermopile in series (para. 0058); measuring a summation value in respect of the received infrared electromagnetic radiation (para. 0058); and calculating a temperature by using the temperature gradient to compensate the summation value (para. 0058).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes et al. US 2017/0003172.
Regarding claim 9, Maes does not explicitly disclose wherein neighbouring thermocouples of the first thermopile are separated by a number of separating channels narrower than the thermocouples, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights