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 8 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the insulating layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this is considered to depend from claim 6.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the insulating layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this is considered to depend from claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Willis(EP 0139350).
Willis discloses a device for welding two resin tubes together comprising a wafer having a first and second substrate(folded sheet 11, Pg. 4, ll. 10) with a heating element therebetween.(10) A hole penetrates the second substrate and is configured to expose the inner surface of the first substrate through which temperature can be sensed.(19)
Regarding claim 3, as “the vicinity” has not been defined, the hole is in the vicinity of the opposing side.
Regarding claim 5, the second substrate is formed by folding back the first substrate. (Col. 5, ll. 29)
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaposka et al.(US Patent 4,864,101) in view of Willis et al.
Shaposka et al. discloses a device for welding two resin tubes together comprising a wafer having a first and second substrate(30,32) with a heating element therebetween.(26) The reference dose not disclose a hole penetrates the second substrate and is configured to expose the inner surface of the first substrate through which temperature can be sensed. Willis et al. discloses forming a hole through one substrate to the heating element where a resistor is placed. A hole penetrates the second substrate and is configured to expose the inner surface of the first substrate through which temperature can be sensed.(19) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to place a hole through one substrate and its insulating layer exposing the other substrate and placing a resistor in the circuit at that location since that would allow determination of whether the wafer has already been used as taught by Willis et al.(Abstract) One in the art would appreciate that the hole would extend through the insulating layer since the resistor is in contact with the circuitry and that is located between the insulating layers.(Figure 8)
Regarding claim 6, Shaposka et al. discloses an insulating later on both substrates.(Figure 8)
Regarding claim 7, Shaposka et al. shows the heating element is on the insulating layer.(Figure 8) Which surface it is formed on is a method limitation that does not affect the structure of the wafer.
Regarding claim 8, while Shaposka et al. teaches a resistance circuit(Col. 5, ll. 10) which require a wiring pattern. Which surface it is formed on is a method limitation that does not affect the structure of the wafer.
Regarding claim 9, Shaposka et al. shows two contact holes(36) which expose connection pads.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17, 19, and 20 are allowed.
Claims 2 and 4 are 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: regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the hole avoiding the heating element as the resistor is intended to contact the circuit to its absence can be detected. Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the hole having a portion that intersects an edge forming a notch in the wafer. Regarding claim 10 and 20, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest using a temperature sensor to detect a temperature inside the hole as that is not the intended purpose of the hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights