DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,163,938. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each instant claim is merely broader than the corresponding claim of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 2-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,761,936. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each instant claim is merely broader than the corresponding claim of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,977,044. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each instant claim is merely broader than the corresponding claim of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 8, 11-13, and 16-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,977,044 in view of Le Neel et al. (US 20140291677 A1, prior art of record via IDS and previous parent prosecution). Le Neel teaches that the capacitor structure and temperature sensor is part of a surface layer. It would be obvious to incorporate the teachings of Le Neel to expose the sensors closer to the ambient conditions being sensed.
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 2-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 13 (and claims 3-7, 9-12, and 14-18 by dependency): “the voltage Vt” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what voltage is being referred to.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummins (US 20110226041 A1, prior art of record via IDS and previous parent prosecution) in view of Allington (US 4406158 A).Regarding claim 2:Cummins teaches an apparatus (FIGS. 1 and 3) including:
(a) at least one sensor structure formed as part of an integrated circuit die and responsive to a selected environmental characteristic (e.g., FIG. 3 – 60; [0071], [0078], [0080]-[0081], [0083]); (b) at least one temperature-sensitive sensor (FIG. 1 – 13; FIG. 13; [0069], [0097]), at least one of the at least one temperature-sensitive sensor (e.g., metal heat monitor distinguished at [0095]; alternatively 13) including: (1) a resistance-based temperature-sensitive subcircuit (already cited – e.g., [0095], FIG. 13, etc.); and a node of the subcircuit being sampled (e.g., [0097]-[0098]) and (c) processing circuitry (e.g., FIG. 1 – 2; FIG. 15; [0062], [0099]), coupled to the at least one sensor structure and the at least one temperature-sensitive sensorCummins fails to teach:
a sample-and-hold circuit having an input coupled to a node of the resistance- based temperature-sensitive subcircuit and configured to output a signal ΔT indicative of a difference between a first temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a first time and a second temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a subsequent second timeAllington teaches:
a sample-and-hold circuit having an input coupled to a node of the resistance-based temperature-sensitive subcircuit and configured to output a signal ΔT indicative of a difference between a first temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a first time and a second temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a subsequent second time(FIG. 7 – 186; Col. 8, Lines 15-40; Col. 11, Lines 49-58; Col. 13, Lines 6-16)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sample and hold circuit of Allington in the device of Cummins as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for monitoring temperature and temperature changes in a device as well as for temperature correction when the device is operating at a temperature that differs from a baseline or reference temperature. Additionally/alternatively, the sample and hold circuit of Allington may be added to the device of Cummins (tapped into the node) to increase accuracy by determining a deviation from a reference temperature that should be the same for a different point in time (e.g., excursion from a previous baseline).
Regarding claim 3:Cummins and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Cummins also teaches:
at least one heating element positioned sufficiently close to an associated one sensor structure of the at least one sensor structure to enable localized heating near the associated one sensor structure(FIG. 3 – 50; [0069])
Regarding claim 5:Cummins and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Cummins also teaches:
at least one environmental sensor for sensing one or more gases and/or one or more vapors, the at least one environmental sensor combined with and coupled to the at least one sensor structure in a common circuit structure(e.g., FIG. 1 – 11; [0108]-[0110]; [0117]-[0119]. E.g., a single die reading both humidity and gas or other sensors through shared conversion or processing circuitry is a common circuit.)
Regarding claim 6:Cummins and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Cummins also teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor structure includes an environmentally sensitive dielectric material that is responsive to humidity([0071]-[0072], [0076], [0083])
Regarding claim 7:Cummins and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Cummins also teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor structure includes an environmentally sensitive dielectric material that is responsive to a selected biological or chemical molecule ([0071]-[0072], [0076], [0083]…also see [0117], [0108], [0110], [0118])
Regarding claim 13:Cummins teaches an integrated circuit die including:
(a) a surface layer ([0066], [0070]-[0071]; FIG. 3); (b) at least one capacitive sensor structure formed as part of the surface layer of the integrated circuit die (e.g., FIG. 3 – 60; [0071], [0078], [0080]-[0081], [0083], [0087]-[0090]); (c) at least one temperature-sensitive sensor formed as part of the integrated circuit die (e.g., metal heat monitor distinguished at [0095]; alternatively 13), at least one of the at least one temperature-sensitive sensor including: (1) a resistance-based temperature-sensitive subcircuit (already cited – e.g., [0095], FIG. 13, etc.); and a node of the subcircuit being sampled (e.g., [0097]-[0098])Cummins fails to teach:
a sample-and-hold circuit having an input coupled to a node of the resistance-based temperature-sensitive subcircuit and configured to output a signal ΔT indicative of a difference between a first temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a first time and a second temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a subsequent second timeAllington teaches:
a sample-and-hold circuit having an input coupled to a node of the resistance-based temperature-sensitive subcircuit and configured to output a signal ΔT indicative of a difference between a first temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a first time and a second temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a subsequent second time(FIG. 7 – 186; Col. 8, Lines 15-40; Col. 11, Lines 49-58; Col. 13, Lines 6-16)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sample and hold circuit of Allington in the device of Cummins as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for monitoring temperature and temperature changes in a device as well as for temperature correction when the device is operating at a temperature that differs from a baseline or reference temperature. Additionally/alternatively, the sample and hold circuit of Allington may be added to the device of Cummins (tapped into the node) to increase accuracy by determining a deviation from a reference temperature that should be the same for a different point in time (e.g., excursion from a previous baseline).
Regarding claim 15:Cummins and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 13, as mentioned above.Cummins also teaches:
at least one environmental sensor for sensing one or more gases and/or one or more vapors, the at least one environmental sensor combined with and coupled to the at least one capacitive sensor structure in a common circuit structure(e.g., FIG. 1 – 11; [0108]-[0110]; [0117]-[0119]. E.g., a single die reading both humidity and gas or other sensors through shared conversion or processing circuitry is a common circuit.)
Regarding claim 16:Cummins and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 13, as mentioned above.Cummins also teaches:
wherein the at least one capacitive sensor structure includes an environmentally sensitive dielectric material responsive to humidity([0071]-[0072], [0076], [0083])
Regarding claim 17:Cummins and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 13, as mentioned above.Cummins also teaches:
wherein the at least one capacitive sensor structure includes an environmentally sensitive dielectric material responsive to a selected biological or chemical molecule ([0071]-[0072], [0076], [0083]…also see [0117], [0108], [0110], [0118])
Regarding claim 18:Cummins and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 13, as mentioned above.Cummins also teaches:
at least one heating element positioned sufficiently close to an associated one capacitive sensor structure of the at least one sensor structure to enable localized heating near the associated one capacitive sensor structure(FIG. 3 – 50; [0069])
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummins (US 20110226041 A1, prior art of record via IDS and previous parent prosecution) in view of Allington (US 4406158 A) and further in view of Bruno et al. (US 20160347606 A1, prior art of record via IDS and previous parent prosecution).Regarding claim 4:Cummins and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Cummins fails to teach:
a pressure sensor die mounted on a surface layer of the integrated circuit dieBruno teaches:
a pressure sensor die mounted on a surface layer of the integrated circuit die (e.g., pressure sensor 110 is bonded directly onto the chip that has the humidity sensor and control circuit)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pressure sensor die of Bruno in the device of Cummins to allow for sensing of the additional parameter of pressure of the gas. This is a combination of known elements yielding the predictable result of sensing the parameters Cummins in addition to the pressure, as given by the pressure sensor of Bruno.
Regarding claim 14:Cummins and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 13, as mentioned above.Cummins fails to teach:
a pressure sensor die mounted on the surface layer of the integrated circuit dieBruno teaches:
a pressure sensor die mounted on the surface layer of the integrated circuit die (e.g., pressure sensor 110 is bonded directly onto the chip that has the humidity sensor and control circuit)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pressure sensor die of Bruno in the device of Cummins to allow for sensing of the additional parameter of pressure of the gas. This is a combination of known elements yielding the predictable result of sensing the parameters Cummins in addition to the pressure, as given by the pressure sensor of Bruno.
Claims 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Neel et al. (US 20140291677 A1, prior art of record via IDS and previous parent prosecution) in view of Allington (US 4406158 A).Regarding claim 8:Le Neel teaches an integrated circuit die including:
(a) at least one capacitor structure formed as part of a surface layer of the integrated circuit die, each capacitor structure including an environmentally sensitive material as a dielectric (e.g., FIG. 3 – humidity sensor 156); (b) at least one heating element positioned sufficiently close to an associated one capacitor structure of the at least one capacitor structure to enable localized heating near the associated one capacitor structure (e.g., [0047]); (c) at least one temperature-sensitive sensor (e.g., FIG. 3 – 208) formed as part of the surface layer of the integrated circuit die, at least one of the at least one temperature-sensitive sensor including: (1) a resistance-based temperature-sensitive subcircuit (e.g., [0042], [0069]); and (d) processing circuitry, coupled to the at least one capacitor structure and the at least one resistance-based temperature-sensitive sensor ([0041], [0044], [0046], [0055]; claims 12 and 19; FIG. 5 step 502)Le Neel fails to teach:
a sample-and-hold circuit having an input coupled to a node of the resistance- based temperature-sensitive subcircuit and configured to output a signal ΔT indicative of a difference between a first temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a first time and a second temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a subsequent second timeAllington teaches:
a sample-and-hold circuit having an input coupled to a node of the resistance- based temperature-sensitive subcircuit and configured to output a signal ΔT indicative of a difference between a first temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a first time and a second temperature indicated by the voltage Vt at a subsequent second time(FIG. 7 – 186; Col. 8, Lines 15-40; Col. 11, Lines 49-58; Col. 13, Lines 6-16)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sample and hold circuit of Allington in the device of Le Neel as it is an art-recognized equivalent means for monitoring temperature and temperature changes in a device as well as for temperature correction when the device is operating at a temperature that differs from a baseline or reference temperature. Additionally/alternatively, the sample and hold circuit of Allington may be added to the device of Le Neel (tapped into the node) to increase accuracy by determining a deviation from a reference temperature that should be the same for a different point in time (e.g., excursion from a previous baseline). Also see Le Neel: [0071]-[0077]; and FIG. 11, 1120.
Regarding claim 11:Le Neel and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Le Neel also teaches:
wherein the at least one capacitor structure includes an environmentally sensitive dielectric material that is responsive to humidity (e.g., [0043], [0048], claim 14; FIG 2. – 156 and 217; FIG. 3 - 217)
Regarding claim 12:Le Neel and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Le Neel also teaches:
wherein the at least one capacitor structure includes an environmentally sensitive dielectric material that is responsive to a selected biological or chemical molecule (humidity / water detection – water is a chemical molecule)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Neel et al. (US 20140291677 A1, prior art of record via IDS and previous parent prosecution) in view of Allington (US 4406158 A) and further in view of Bruno et al. (US 20160347606 A1).Regarding claim 9:Le Neel and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Le Neel also teaches:
a pressure sensor (e.g., FIG. 3 – 154)Le Neel fails to teach:
the pressure sensor being a die mounted on the surface layer of the integrated circuit dieBruno teaches:
the pressure sensor being a die mounted on the surface layer of the integrated circuit die (e.g., pressure sensor 110 is bonded directly onto the chip that has the humidity sensor and control circuit)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the pressure sensor die and mount it to the surface layer of the integrated circuit, as taught by Bruno, in the device of Le Neel to yield pressure sensing without constraining the sensing die’s process flow and/or as it is an art-recognize equivalent way of constructing a multi-sensor device. Le Neel’s preference for the sensor integration on the same layer or as “a single semiconductor die” ([0008]) and the description of separate dies as prior art knowledge ([0005]) show a design trade-off between die count and process compatibility. Le Neel does not explicitly criticize, discredit, or discourage mounting a separately fabricated pressure sensing die.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Neel et al. (US 20140291677 A1, prior art of record via IDS and previous parent prosecution) in view of Allington (US 4406158 A) and further in view of Cummins (US 20110226041 A1, prior art of record via IDS and previous parent prosecution).Regarding claim 10:Le Neel and Allington teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Le Neel fails to teach:
further comprising at least one environmental sensor for sensing one or more gases and/or one or more vapors, the at least one environmental sensor combined with and coupled to the at least one capacitor structure in a common circuit structureCummins teaches:
further comprising at least one environmental sensor for sensing one or more gases and/or one or more vapors, the at least one environmental sensor combined with and coupled to the at least one capacitor structure in a common circuit structure(e.g., a gas/vapor sensor on the same die as the humidity sensor and read through the same converter and same microcontroller – [0108]-[0110], [0117]-[0119]; FIG. 1 – 11)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an additional sensor for sensing one or more gasses and/or one or more vapors, as taught by Cummins, in the device of Le Neel to yield additional sensing capabilities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights