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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12 February 2026 and 14 April 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0034], line 1: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “sensor.”
Paragraph [0048], line 6: A – comma – should be inserted prior to the term “such.”
Paragraph [0049], line: A – comma – should be inserted after the term “Thus.”
Paragraph [0072], line 4: The term – sensor – should replace the term “sense.”
Paragraph [0073], line 1: The article – a – should be inserted prior to the term “sensor.”
Paragraph [0078], line 2: The term – presence – should replace the term “present.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 1, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality/intended use of the apparatus.
Re claim 8, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality/intended use of the system.
Re claim 8, claim line 13: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality/intended use of the sensor die.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3, 5-6, 10, 12-13, 16-17, and 19 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.
Re claim 2, claim lines 1-2: The term “thin film” 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. It is unclear what thicknesses of layers/films may meet the claimed limitation and which film/layers would not say be adequately deemed thin enough for purposes of meeting the claim limitation. Since the metes and bounds of the term “thin” are unknown, the claimed term, as well as the claim itself, are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 3, claim line 2: It is unclear how one retaining ring defines more than one region as claimed.
Re claim 5, claim line 2: It is unclear how electrodes can be deemed to have a second width without having previously had a first width disclosed/claimed.
Re claim 6, claim line 3: The phrase “substantially surround” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “substantially surround” 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. It is unclear how much of the electrodes need to be surrounded by the one or more buses to be deemed to be substantially surrounded. Does substantially surrounded mean just a majority of coverage or 75% coverage, or even more coverage. Since the metes and bounds of the phrase “substantially surrounded” are unknown, the claimed phrase, as well as the claim itself, are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 9, claim line 1: The term “thin film” 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. It is unclear what thicknesses of layers/films may meet the claimed limitation and which film/layers would not say be adequately deemed thin enough for purposes of meeting the claim limitation. Since the metes and bounds of the term “thin” are unknown, the claimed term, as well as the claim itself, are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 10, claim line 2: It is unclear how one retaining ring defines more than one region as claimed.
Re claim 12, claim line 2: It is unclear how electrodes can be deemed to have a second width without having previously had a first width disclosed/claimed.
Re claim 13, claim line 3: The phrase “substantially surround” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “substantially surround” 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. It is unclear how much of the electrodes need to be surrounded by the one or more buses to be deemed to be substantially surrounded. Does substantially surrounded mean just a majority of coverage, or 75% coverage, or even more coverage. Since the metes and bounds of the phrase “substantially surrounded” are unknown, the claimed phrase, as well as the claim itself, are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 16, claim lines 1-2: The term “thin film” 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. It is unclear what thicknesses of layers/films may meet the claimed limitation and which film/layers would not say be adequately deemed thin enough for purposes of meeting the claim limitation. Since the metes and bounds of the term “thin” are unknown, the claimed term, as well as the claim itself, are deemed to be indefinite.
Re claim 17, claim line 2: It is unclear how fabricating one retaining ring defines more than one region as claimed.
Re claim 19, claim line 3: The phrase “substantially surround” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “substantially surround” 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. It is unclear how much of the electrodes need to be surrounded by the one or more buses to be deemed to be substantially surrounded. Does substantially surrounded mean just a majority of coverage or 75% coverage, or even more coverage. Since the metes and bounds of the phrase “substantially surrounded” are unknown, the claimed phrase, as well as the claim itself, are deemed to be indefinite.
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, 3, 6-7, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,215,643 (Kusanagi et al.).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Kusanagi et al. disclose an electrochemical gas sensor, comprising:
a substrate (11) (col. 4, line 5 and Figure 1);
a plurality of interdigitated electrodes (12, 13) comprised of a metal (platinum - col. 12-13) disposed proximate to a surface of the substrate (col. 4, lines 15-18 and 24-29); and
a solid polymer electrolyte (SPE) sensing layer (16) disposed proximate to the plurality of IDEs (electrolyte (16) formed to cover the reactive portions (12a,13a) of the electrodes – col. 4, lines 41-49 and Figure 1).
With respect to the limitation of claim 3, Kusanagi et al. further disclose one or more retaining rings (15) defining one or more regions therebetween configured to contain at least a volume of SPE (a frame (15) is secured on the substrate (11) to enclose a region therebetween the reactive portions (12A,13A) of the electrodes, such that the frame (15) is utilized to contain a volume of the solid polymer electrolyte – col. 4, lines 36-43 and 49-53 and Figure 1).
With respect to the limitation of claim 6, Kusanagi et al. further disclose the plurality of IDEs comprises one or more electrodes (12, 13) that are in electrical connection with one or more buses, wherein the one or more buses are configured to substantially surround at least an area comprising the one or more electrodes (individual fingers belonging to each electrode are electrically coupled to one another through a conductive trace/bus, which connects all corresponding fingers to a common contact portion, ensuring that the fingers function collectively as a single electrode – Figure 1).
With respect to the limitation of claim 7, Kusanagi et al. appear to disclose configuring the apparatus to measure variation in impedance, via the plurality of IDEs and the sensing layer, to detect presence of the vapor (an impedance measurement is performed on various sensor examples made with a plurality of IDEs and different solid electrolyte layers – col. 13, lines 8-44 and Figure 18).
With respect to the limitations of claim 15, Kusanagi et al. disclose a method for constructing an apparatus for detecting a vapor comprising:
depositing a plurality of interdigitated electrodes (IDEs) comprised of a metal onto a surface of a substrate (interdigitated electrodes (12, 13) comprised of a metal (platinum - col. 12-13) deposited onto a surface of the substrate (col. 4, lines 15-18 and 24-29); and
depositing a sensing layer comprised of solid polymer electrolyte (SPE) proximate to the plurality of IDEs such that the sensing layer covers at least the plurality of IDEs (solid polymer electrolyte (16) formed to cover the reactive portions (12a,13a) of the electrodes – col. 4, lines 41-49 and Figure 1).
With respect to the limitation of claim 17, Kusanagi et al. further disclose fabricating one or more retaining rings defining one or more regions therebetween configured to contain at least a volume of SPE (fabrication of a frame (15) secured on the substrate (11) encloses a region therebetween the reactive portions (12A,13A) of the electrodes, such that the frame (15) is utilized to contain a volume of the solid polymer electrolyte – col. 4, lines 36-43 and 49-53 and Figure 1).
With respect to the limitation of claim 19, Kusanagi et al. further disclose that the plurality of IDEs comprises one or more electrodes (12, 13) that are in electrical connection with one or more buses, wherein the one or more buses are configured to substantially surround at least an area comprising the one or more electrodes (individual fingers belonging to each electrode are electrically coupled to one another through a conductive trace/bus, which connects all corresponding fingers to a common contact portion, ensuring that the fingers function collectively as a single electrode – Figure 1).
With respect to the limitation of claim 20, Kusanagi et al. appear to disclose configuring a sensor die to measure variation in impedance, via the plurality of IDEs and the sensing layer, to detect presence of the vapor (an impedance measurement is performed on various sensor examples made with a plurality of IDEs and different solid electrolyte layers – col. 13, lines 8-44 and Figure 18).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,215,643 (Kusanagi et al.).
With respect to the limitation of claim 4, Kusanagi et al. disclose all of the limitations of the base claim, including that the electrodes have a first width; and that the electrodes are preferably spaced in a range of about ten micrometers to three millimeters. Although Kusanagi et al. fail to expressly disclose that spacing between the electrodes equal the width of the electrodes, the Examiner argues that that this feature is a choice of design that would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to minimize the size of sensor by minimizing the footprint of the sensor through spacing of the electrodes to make the sensor easier to place in various environments.
With respect to the limitations of claim 5, Kusanagi et al. disclose all of the limitations of the base claim, including that the electrodes have a second width; and that the electrodes are preferably spaced in a range of about ten micrometers to three millimeters. Kusanagi et al. fail to expressly disclose that electrodes are spaced apart from each other a first width that is different than the second width; however, the Examiner argues that spacing range of the electrodes is substantially large such that the spacing width of the electrodes is capable of being different than the width of the electrodes. Modifying the width of the electrodes or the spacing of the electrodes is a choice of design that would be well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
With respect to the limitation of claim 18, Kusanagi et al. disclose all of the limitations of the base claim, including that the electrodes have a first width; and that the electrodes are preferably spaced in a range of about ten micrometers to three millimeters. Although Kusanagi et al. fail to expressly disclose that spacing between the electrodes equal the width of the electrodes, the Examiner argues that that this feature is a choice of design that would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to minimize the size of sensor by minimizing the footprint of the sensor through spacing of the electrodes to make the sensor easier to place in various environments.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0264106 (Chapples et al.) in view of US 5,215,643 (Kusanagi et al.).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Chapples et al. disclose an apparatus for detecting a vapor utilizing a sensor (102), comprising:
a substrate (104) (paragraph [0049], lines 1-7 and Figures 1-5);
a plurality of interdigitated electrodes (110) comprised of a metal (paragraph [0050], lines 7-10) disposed proximate to a surface of the substrate (paragraph [0050], lines 1-2 and 20-21); and
a solid polymer sensing layer (106) disposed proximate to the plurality of IDEs (polymer support (106) is in contact with the pair of electrodes (110) – paragraph [0050], line 10-12). Chapples et al. fail to expressly disclose that the sensing layer is a solid polymer electrolyte.
Kusanagi et al. disclose an electrochemical gas sensor, comprising a substrate (11) having a plurality of interdigitated electrodes (12, 13) covered by a solid polymer electrolyte layer (16) (col. 4, lines 41-49 and Figure 1). Modifying the sensing layer in Chappeles et al. with a solid polymer electrolyte would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as a means of improving and stabilizing the sensitivity to gases (col. 1, lines 62-63).
With respect to the limitation of claim 3, the combination (Kusanagi et al.) further disclose one or more retaining rings (15) defining one or more regions therebetween configured to contain at least a volume of SPE (a frame (15) is secured on the substrate (11) to enclose a region therebetween the reactive portions (12A,13A) of the electrodes, such that the frame (15) is utilized to contain a volume of the solid polymer electrolyte – col. 4, lines 36-43 and 49-53 and Figure 1).
With respect to the limitation of claim 4, the combination disclose all of the limitations of the base claim. Kusanagi et al. further disclose that the electrodes have a first width; and that the electrodes are preferably spaced in a range of about ten micrometers to three millimeters. Although the combination fails to expressly disclose that spacing between the electrodes equal the width of the electrodes, the Examiner argues that that this feature is a choice of design that would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to minimize the size of sensor by minimizing the footprint of the sensor through spacing of the electrodes to make the sensor easier to place in various environments.
With respect to the limitations of claim 5, the combination disclose all of the limitations of the base claim. Kusanagi et al. further disclose that the electrodes have a second width; and that the electrodes are preferably spaced in a range of about ten micrometers to three millimeters. The combination fails to expressly disclose that electrodes are spaced apart from each other a first width that is different than the second width; however, the Examiner argues that spacing range of the electrodes is substantially large such that the spacing width of the electrodes is capable of being different than the width of the electrodes. Modifying the width of the electrodes or the spacing of the electrodes is a choice of design that would be well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
With respect to the limitation of claim 6, the combination (Kusanagi et al.) further disclose the plurality of IDEs comprises one or more electrodes (12, 13) that are in electrical connection with one or more buses, wherein the one or more buses are configured to substantially surround at least an area comprising the one or more electrodes (individual fingers belonging to each electrode are electrically coupled to one another through a conductive trace/bus, which connects all corresponding fingers to a common contact portion, ensuring that the fingers function collectively as a single electrode – Figure 1). Chappel et al. also disclose that the pair of electrodes (110) are in contact with a pair of contact pads (112) through a connection path (124), such as electrical connection members like electrical traces (paragraph [0056], lines 5-11).
With respect to the limitation of claim 7, the combination disclose measuring a variation in the impendence. Kusanagi et al. appear to disclose configuring the apparatus to measure variation in impedance, via the plurality of IDEs and the sensing layer, to detect presence of the vapor (an impedance measurement is performed on various sensor examples made with a plurality of IDEs and different solid electrolyte layers – col. 13, lines 8-44 and Figure 18). Chappel et al. also disclose that if an impedance of the polymer support is below an impedance threshold a vapor is detected (paragraph [047], lines 14-21).
With respect to the limitations of claim 8, Chapples et al. disclose a system for detecting a vapor associated with a battery by utilizing a sensor (102) (paragraph [0048], lines 6-8), comprising:
a lithium-ion battery (paragraph [00], lines );
a sensor die for detecting a vapor comprising:
a substrate (104) (paragraph [0049], lines 1-7 and Figures 1-5);
a plurality of interdigitated electrodes (110) comprised of a metal (paragraph [0050], lines 7-10) disposed proximate to a surface of the substrate (paragraph [0050], lines 1-2 and 20-21); and
a solid polymer sensing layer (106) disposed proximate to the plurality of IDEs (polymer support (106) is in contact with the pair of electrodes (110) – paragraph [0050], line 10-12). Chapples et al. fail to expressly disclose that the sensing layer is a solid polymer electrolyte.
Kusanagi et al. disclose an electrochemical gas sensor, comprising a substrate (11) having a plurality of interdigitated electrodes (12, 13) covered by a solid polymer electrolyte layer (16) (col. 4, lines 41-49 and Figure 1). Modifying the sensing layer in Chappeles et al. with a solid polymer electrolyte would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as a means of improving and stabilizing the sensitivity to gases (col. 1, lines 62-63).
With respect to the limitation of claim 10, the combination (Kusanagi et al.) further disclose one or more retaining rings (15) defining one or more regions therebetween configured to contain at least a volume of SPE (a frame (15) is secured on the substrate (11) to enclose a region therebetween the reactive portions (12A,13A) of the electrodes, such that the frame (15) is utilized to contain a volume of the solid polymer electrolyte – col. 4, lines 36-43 and 49-53 and Figure 1).
With respect to the limitation of claim 11, the combination disclose all of the limitations of the base claim. Kusanagi et al. further disclose that the electrodes have a first width; and that the electrodes are preferably spaced in a range of about ten micrometers to three millimeters. Although the combination fails to expressly disclose that spacing between the electrodes equal the width of the electrodes, the Examiner argues that that this feature is a choice of design that would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to minimize the size of sensor by minimizing the footprint of the sensor through spacing of the electrodes to make the sensor easier to place in various environments.
With respect to the limitations of claim 12, the combination disclose all of the limitations of the base claim. Kusanagi et al. further disclose that the electrodes have a second width; and that the electrodes are preferably spaced in a range of about ten micrometers to three millimeters. The combination fails to expressly disclose that electrodes are spaced apart from each other a first width that is different than the second width; however, the Examiner argues that spacing range of the electrodes is substantially large such that the spacing width of the electrodes is capable of being different than the width of the electrodes. Modifying the width of the electrodes or the spacing of the electrodes is a choice of design that would be well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
With respect to the limitation of claim 13, the combination (Kusanagi et al.) further disclose the plurality of IDEs comprises one or more electrodes (12, 13) that are in electrical connection with one or more buses, wherein the one or more buses are configured to substantially surround at least an area comprising the one or more electrodes (individual fingers belonging to each electrode are electrically coupled to one another through a conductive trace/bus, which connects all corresponding fingers to a common contact portion, ensuring that the fingers function collectively as a single electrode – Figure 1). Chappel et al. also disclose that the pair of electrodes (110) are in contact with a pair of contact pads (112) through a connection path (124), such as electrical connection members like electrical traces (paragraph [0056], lines 5-11).
With respect to the limitation of claim 14, the combination disclose measuring a variation in the impendence. Kusanagi et al. appear to disclose configuring the apparatus to measure variation in impedance, via the plurality of IDEs and the sensing layer, to detect presence of the vapor (an impedance measurement is performed on various sensor examples made with a plurality of IDEs and different solid electrolyte layers – col. 13, lines 8-44 and Figure 18). Chappel et al. also disclose that if an impedance of the polymer support is below an impedance threshold a vapor is detected (paragraph [047], lines 14-21).
With respect to the limitations of claim 15, Chapples et al. disclose a method for constructing an apparatus for detecting a vapor utilizing a sensor (102), comprising:
depositing a plurality of interdigitated electrodes (110) comprised of a metal (paragraph [0050], lines 7-10) onto a surface of a substrate (104) (paragraph [0050], lines 1-2 and 20-21); and
depositing a solid polymer sensing layer (106) proximate to the plurality of IDEs (110) such that the sensing layer covers at least the plurality of IDEs (polymer support (106) is in contact with the pair of electrodes (110) – paragraph [0050], line 10-12) . Chapples et al. fail to expressly disclose that the sensing layer is a solid polymer electrolyte.
Kusanagi et al. disclose a method for constructing an apparatus for detecting a vapor comprising depositing a sensing layer comprised of solid polymer electrolyte (SPE) proximate to the plurality of IDEs such that the sensing layer covers at least the plurality of IDEs (solid polymer electrolyte (16) formed to cover the reactive portions (12a,13a) of the electrodes – col. 4, lines 41-49 and Figure 1). Modifying the sensing layer in Chappeles et al. with a solid polymer electrolyte would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as a means of improving and stabilizing the sensitivity to gases (col. 1, lines 62-63).
With respect to the limitation of claim 17, the combination (Kusanagi et al.) further disclose one or more retaining rings (15) defining one or more regions therebetween configured to contain at least a volume of SPE (a frame (15) is secured on the substrate (11) to enclose a region therebetween the reactive portions (12A,13A) of the electrodes, such that the frame (15) is utilized to contain a volume of the solid polymer electrolyte – col. 4, lines 36-43 and 49-53 and Figure 1).
With respect to the limitation of claim 18, the combination disclose all of the limitations of the base claim. Kusanagi et al. further disclose that the electrodes have a first width; and that the electrodes are preferably spaced in a range of about ten micrometers to three millimeters. Although the combination fails to expressly disclose that spacing between the electrodes equal the width of the electrodes, the Examiner argues that that this feature is a choice of design that would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to minimize the size of sensor by minimizing the footprint of the sensor through spacing of the electrodes to make the sensor easier to place in various environments.
With respect to the limitation of claim 19, the combination (Kusanagi et al.) further disclose the plurality of IDEs comprises one or more electrodes (12, 13) that are in electrical connection with one or more buses, wherein the one or more buses are configured to substantially surround at least an area comprising the one or more electrodes (individual fingers belonging to each electrode are electrically coupled to one another through a conductive trace/bus, which connects all corresponding fingers to a common contact portion, ensuring that the fingers function collectively as a single electrode – Figure 1). Chappel et al. also disclose that the pair of electrodes (110) are in contact with a pair of contact pads (112) through a connection path (124), such as electrical connection members like electrical traces (paragraph [0056], lines 5-11).
With respect to the limitation of claim 20, the combination disclose measuring a variation in the impendence. Kusanagi et al. appear to disclose configuring the apparatus to measure variation in impedance, via the plurality of IDEs and the sensing layer, to detect presence of the vapor (an impedance measurement is performed on various sensor examples made with a plurality of IDEs and different solid electrolyte layers – col. 13, lines 8-44 and Figure 18). Chappel et al. also disclose that if an impedance of the polymer support is below an impedance threshold a vapor is detected (paragraph [047], lines 14-21).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0264106 (Chapples et al.) in view of US 5,215,643 (Kusanagi et al.) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of KR 100940524.
With respect to the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Chapples et al. in view of Kusanagi et al. disclose all of the limitations of the base claims. Chapples et al. further disclose that the substrate (104) may comprises one or more of silicon, silicon oxide, silicon nitride… (paragraph [0049], lines 2-4). The combination fails to expressly disclose that the substrate is comprised of bulk silicon with a thin film of silicon oxide.
KR 100940524 discloses a high sensitive FET sensor comprising a substrate formed by depositing a silicon oxide film on a bulk silicon substrate. Modifying the combination to create a substrate from bulk silicon with a layer of silicon oxide would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention because Chapples et al. suggests that combinations of silicon and silicon oxide can be used to form a substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art to JP-4452244 discloses a gas sensor element and method of manufacturing a gas sensor element, whereby the substrate of the gas sensor comprises a silicon wafer with a layer of silicon oxide attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, Laura 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.
/DANIEL S LARKIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights