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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality:
a) claim 4 requires “. . . ., wherein some of the sensor FETs are N type FETs and the other sensor FETs are P type FETs. [italicizing by the Examiner]” The word “type” should be avoided in claims. The Examiner suggests instead -- . . . ., wherein some of the sensor FETs are N channel FETs and the other sensor FETs are P channel FETs. --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims.
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 1-15 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:
a) claim 1 recites the limitation "film thickness"[italicizing by the Examiner] in
lines 10 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim only previously refers to “layers” and “layer”.
b) claim 1 requires “. . . ., and the gas detection material layers are different from each other in the combination of the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the metal oxide layer and the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the catalyst metal layer.[italicizing by the Examiner]” What is meant by the “type” of material of the metal oxide layer and the “type” of material of the catalyst metal layer?
c) claim 1 recites the limitation “. . . ., and the gas detection material layers are different from each other in the combination of the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the metal oxide layer and the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the catalyst metal layer.[italicizing by the Examiner]”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of crystal particles of any sort in the claim.
b) claim 2 requires “. . . ., wherein each of the gas detection material layers is used as a gate layer and a gate insulating film layer, a drain layer, a source layer, and a well are provided between the metal oxide layer and the semiconductor substrate to constitute a plurality of sensor FETs.[italicizing by the Examiner]” This claim is confusing. Is Applicant claiming that the catalyst layer, metal oxide layer, and any other gas detection material layers at each of the respective different positions on the semiconductor substrate are each used as a gate layer and a gate insulating film layer, a drain layer, and as a source layer at each position?
d) claim 2 requires “. . . ., wherein each of the gas detection material layers is used as a gate layer and a gate insulating film layer, . . . .” How is a gate layer necessarily different from a gate insulating film layer? Put another way, how does the scope of “a gate layer” exclude “a gate insulating film layer”?
e) claim 2 requires “. . . ., and a well are provided between the metal oxide layer and the semiconductor substrate to constitute a plurality of sensor FETs.[italicizing by the Examiner]” Structural element 2 in Applicant’s Figure 3A is said to illustrate such a well. See paragraph [0037] in Applicant’s specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Layer 2 in no way resembles a well as conventionally understood in the electrochemical sensing art. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand 2 to be a silicon base substrate. See, for example, Figure 1 and paragraph [0036] in Javey et al. US 2017/0146483 A1. Applicant I requested to clarify the scope of the word “well”. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
f) claim 2 requires “. . . ., wherein each of the gas detection material layers is used as a gate layer . . . . [italicizing by the Examiner]” A gate layer of a gas sensor is typically exposed to the atmosphere. However, claim 1, form which claim 2 depends requires “. . . ., the catalyst metal layer being exposed to the atmosphere, . . . .” Applicant is requested to clarify the relationship, if any, between the gate layer and the catalyst metal layer.
g) claim 5 requires “. . . ., wherein the sensor FETs respectively have silicon oxide films between the semiconductor substrate and the gate layer, . . . .” However, claim 2, from which claim 5 depends, requires “. . . ., and a well are provided between the metal oxide layer and the semiconductor substrate . . . .” However, these two limitations do not appear consistent. Applicant is requested to clarify the relationship between the silicon oxide films of claim 5 with the well of claim 2.
h) claim 5 requires “. . . ., and the silicon oxide films of the sensor FETs are formed to have plural types of thicknesses.[italicizing by the Examiner]” What is meant by the phrase “types of thicknesses”? This appears to be phrase unique to Applicant. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
i) claim 5 requires “. . . ., and the silicon oxide films of the sensor FETs are formed to have plural types of thicknesses.” It is not clear how to interpret this limitation. Does it mean or allow for each of the silicon oxide films to have more than one type of thickness?
j) claim 6 requires “. . . ., wherein the sensor FETs include an element having the sensor FETs connected in parallel or in series each other.” The scope of the term “an element” is here unclear. Applicant is requested to provide two examples of such an “an element”.
k) claim 7 requires “. . . ., wherein the sensor FETs each include a source terminal, a drain terminal, a well terminal, . . . .” As the scope of “a well” is indefinite (see the claim 2 rejections above) the scope of “a well terminal” is also indefinite.
l) claim 7 requires “. . . ., and at least one of the source terminal and the drain terminal is connected to a power supply terminal to the gas sensor chip from the outside via a second FET having a gate layer separated from the atmosphere.[italicizing by the Examiner]” What is the difference between “the outside” and “the atmosphere”?
m) claim 7 requires “. . . ., and at least one of the source terminal and the drain terminal is connected to a power supply terminal to the gas sensor chip from the outside via . . . “ This limitation is inconsistent with claim 2 form which it depends, as it implies that the at least one of the source terminal and the drain terminal connected to a power supply terminal to the gas sensor chip is outside the gas sensor chip while claim 2 has the source terminal and the drain terminal as part of the gas senor chip.
n) claim 10 recites the limitation "film thickness" in lines 14 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim only previously refers to “layers” and “layer”.
o) claim 10 requires “. . . ., the gas detection material layers are different from each other in the combination of the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the metal oxide layer and the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the catalyst metal layer.[italicizing by the Examiner]” What is meant by the “type” of material of the metal oxide layer and the “type” of material of the catalyst metal layer?
p) claim 10 recites the limitation “. . . ., the gas detection material layers are different from each other in the combination of the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the metal oxide layer and the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the catalyst metal layer.[italicizing by the Examiner]”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of crystal particles of any sort in the claim.
q) claim 12 recites the limitation "film thickness" in the penultimate line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim only previously refers to “layer”.
r) claim 12 requires “. . . ., wherein the first gas detection material layer is different from the second gas detection material layer in at least one of a type, a film thickness, and a crystal particle size of a material constituting the gas detection material layers.[italicizing by the Examiner]” What is meant by the “type” of material of the metal oxide layer and the “type” of material of the catalyst metal layer?
s) claim 12 recites the limitation “. . . ., wherein the first gas detection material layer is different from the second gas detection material layer in at least one of a type, a film thickness, and a crystal particle size of a material constituting the gas detection material layers.[italicizing by the Examiner]” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of crystal particles of any sort in the claim.
t) claim 14 requires “. . . . , wherein the step of forming the first gas detection material layer and the step of forming the second gas detection material layer are performed while being divided in plural film formation steps with a mask.[italicizing by the Examiner]” Is there a difference between the films formed the layers formed?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
a) in claim 1 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined features
PNG
media_image2.png
152
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a)(i) the International Search Report for international application no. PCT/JP2023/032889 cites JP 54-080196 A as a ”Y” document against claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-14; and cites JP 2018-072146 A against claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-14. The corresponding Written Opinion deems claims 1-15 to have novelty, and deems claims 8, 11, and 15 to have an inventive step, but deems claims 1-7, 9-10,and 12-14 to lack an inventive step. In particular, claim 1 is rejected over JP 54-080196 A, which is referred to as Document 1, together with JP 2018-072146 A, which is referred to as Document 2. The U.S. Examiner has obtained an English language translation of Document 1. US 2018/0120253 A is an English language equivalent to JP 2018-072146 A and will be referred to instead as Document 2. The rejection of claim 1 in the Written Opinion states the following
PNG
media_image3.png
228
1164
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Even if true, there is no disclosure in Document 2 of having the gas detection material layers be “different from each other in the combination of the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the metal oxide layer and the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the catalyst metal layer…” as required by claim 1 of US application 19/110899. Document 2 primarily exemplifies its gas sensor with hydrogen gas sensors embodiments. There appears to be only one non-hydrogen gas senor embodiment discussed, which is an oxygen gas sensor discussed as the sixth embodiment in paragraphs [0179]-[0193]. Figure 7 of Document 2 is reproduced below. It “ is a diagram illustrating how the gate layer reacts with hydrogen gas according to the first embodiment of the present invention…” See paragraph [0019].
Figure 20 of Document 2 is also reproduced below. It “ is a diagram illustrating how the gate layer reacts with oxygen gas according to a sixth embodiment of the present invention…” See paragraph [0032].
PNG
media_image4.png
546
1016
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
606
1038
media_image5.png
Greyscale
From these figures and their related discussions in the Document 2 specification the only discernable difference, compositionally or structurally, between the respective gas detection material layers of these two sensor embodiments is that the metal oxide layer of the oxygen sensor comprises yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) while the metal oxide layer in the hydrogen sensor comprises titanium oxide (TiOx). It is clear that Document 2 relies foremost on adjusting the value of certain constants in specially developed equations relating to dissociation and adsorption characteristics of the target gas on the catalyst layer in order to determine the target gas concentration rather than adjustments to the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the metal oxide layer and the type, film thickness, and crystal particle size of material of the catalyst metal layer. See, for example, Document 2 paragraphs [0067]-[0077] and paragraphs [0181]- [0191]. Note especially the following
PNG
media_image6.png
268
478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Also,
PNG
media_image7.png
282
436
media_image7.png
Greyscale
b) claims 2-9 depend directly or indirectly from allowable claim 1.
c) in independent claim 10 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined features
PNG
media_image8.png
132
742
media_image8.png
Greyscale
c)(i) the discussion above regarding the allowability of claim 1 applies to claim 10 also.
d) claim 11 depends from allowable claim 10.
e) in independent claim 12 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined features
PNG
media_image9.png
138
710
media_image9.png
Greyscale
e)(i) the discussion above regarding the allowability of claim 1 applies to claim 12 also.
f) claims 13-15 depend directly or indirectly from allowable claim 12
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571 272-8521. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
