CTFR 17/561,735 CTFR 100065 Attorney’s Docket Number: AD7477-US 111079-267239 Filing Date: 12/24/2021 Inventors: Dogiamis et al. Examiner: Thomas McCoy DETAILED ACTION This Office action responds to the amendments filed on 05/21/2026. 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. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 a 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. Acknowledgement The Amendments filed on 5/21/2026, responding to the Office action mailed 2/25/2026, has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1 and 8. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Response to Amendments/Arguments Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim rejections of 35 U.S.C. 103 as previously formulated in the Non-Final Office actioned mailed on 2/25/2026. Accordingly, the claim rejections of 35 U.S.C. 103 are hereby withdrawn. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-10. New grounds of rejections are presented below, however, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s request for rejoinder is dependent on the allowance of claims 1-10, and since there are new rejections as necessitated by the amendments, claims 11-20 are not in condition for rejoinder. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-10. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20100109102 A1) in view of Adib (US 20210320041 A1) further in view of Yamaguchi (US 20130216699 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Chen (see, e.g., figures. 1A + 2G-2J) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including an electronic package comprising: a core ( e.g., device substrate 205 + cap wafer 209 of figure 2J ), wherein the core ( e.g., device substrate 205 + cap wafer 209 of figure 2J ) comprises a single layer of glass ( see, e.g., paragraph 49 “In other embodiments, other suitable substrates can be utilized, for example, a glass substrate” + note glass substrate 205 is a single layer ); a first via opening ( see, e.g., left-side via of figure 2J + paragraph 46 “The plurality of trenches 206 are formed using a via formation process such as patterning and etching” + “The via fill metallization provides for electrical connectivity between the electronics present in the CMOS substrate and the moveable elements in the accelerometer…” + via fill metallization doesn’t pass through entire substrate 209, also note the via openings formed before subsequent via formation per paragraph 46 ) and a second via opening ( see, e.g., right-side via of figure 2J + paragraph 46 “The plurality of trenches 206 are formed using a via formation process such as patterning and etching” + “The via fill metallization provides for electrical connectivity between the electronics present in the CMOS substrate and the moveable elements in the accelerometer…” + via fill metallization doesn’t pass through entire substrate 209, also note the via openings formed before subsequent via formation per paragraph 46 ) extending only partially into the core ( e.g., device substrate 205 + cap wafer 209 of figure 2J ); A plate ( e.g., proof mass plate 101 of figure 1A ) that spans across the via ( see, e.g., paragraph 52 “Referring to FIGS. 1A and 1B, it will be understood that multiple accelerometers can be included within a single controlled environment illustrated in FIG. 2J” ); Chen (see, e.g., figs. 1A), however, fails to show the via extends only partially into the single layer of the glass of the core, while it also fails to explicitly show the plate spans across the first via opening and the second via opening and is continuous between the first via opening and the second via opening. Adib (see, e.g., fig. 2), in a similar device to Chen, teaches a via ( e.g., via 108 ) extends only partially ( see, e.g., paragraph 67 “…some or all of the one or more vias 108 are open to the first surface 102 but extend only partially through the thickness 106, not extending all the way through the thickness 106…” ) into a single layer of glass ( e.g., glass substrate 100 ). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the via partial-extension of Adib within the glass layer of Chen (see annotated fig. 1 for clarification), in order achieve the expected result of providing additional space within the glass layer and between the via openings and the glass layer boundary as desired. PNG media_image1.png 246 549 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 1 Chen in view of Adib, however, fails to explicitly teach the plate spans across the first via opening and the second via opening and is continuous between the first via opening and the second via opening. Yamaguchi (see, e.g., fig. 4), in a similar device to Chen in view of Adib, teaches a plate ( e.g., pad 10 + paragraph 75 “Although the thickness of pad 10 may also be optional, a flat plate…” ) spans across a first via opening and a second via opening ( e.g., plurality of non-through vias 52 ). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the continuous and spanning plate configuration of Yamaguchi within the plate of Chen in view of Adib, in order to achieve the expected result of including a uniform and continuous accelerometer plate across the length/span of the via openings, improving the capability and sensitivity (see, e.g., paragraph 10 of Chen) within the device. In addition, note that Chen (see, e.g., figs. 3A-3B) discloses patterning the first substrate to form an accelerometer (see, e.g., paragraphs 52-55) and that the plate spans across the entire accelerometer. Regarding claim 2, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows the plate ( e.g., proof mass plate 101 ) is connected to the core ( e.g., device substrate 205 + cap wafer 209 of figure 2J ) by a first anchor and a second anchor ( e.g., anchor points 102 ). Regarding claim 3, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows the plate ( e.g., proof mass plate 101 ) is connected to the core ( e.g., device substrate 205 + cap wafer 209 of figure 2J ) by a plurality of springs ( e.g., springs 103 ). Regarding claim 4, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows a spring ( e.g., springs 103 ) is provided on each corner of the plate ( see springs 103 on each corner of proof mass plate 101 ). Regarding claim 5, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows the plate ( e.g., proof mass plate 101 ) comprises a plurality of holes through the plate ( see, e.g., paragraph 58 “In some implementations, holes are made in the proof mass to form the gas vent holes. As a result, the weight of the proof mass is reduced, adversely impacting device performance.” ). Regarding claim 9, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 2J) shows one or more buildup layers ( see, e.g., patterned standoff structure 203 of Fig. 2J, etched from deposited layer 202 of Fig. 2B ) above and/or below the core ( e.g., device substrate 205 + cap wafer 209 of figure 2J ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Adib further in view Yamaguchi and Lee (US 20130154439 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Adib further in view of Yamaguchi fails to teach a lid over the plate. Lee (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Chen in view of Adib further in view of Yamaguchi, teaches a lid ( e.g., a magnetic layer 50 ) over a plate ( e.g., proof mass 120 ). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the magnetic lid of Lee over the proof mass/plate of Chen in view of Adib further in view of Yamaguchi, in order to control the resonance frequency of the proof mass (see, e.g., paragraphs 11, 40, 47, and 48 of Lee). Regarding claim 7, Lee (see, e.g., fig. 1) teaches a magnetic structure embedded in the lid ( e.g., magnetic layer 50 + paragraph 12 “the magnetic layer may include a hard magnetic material and/or a soft magnetic material” ) over the plate ( e.g., proof mass 120 ). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the magnetic properties of Lee over the proof mass/plate of Chen in view of Adib further in view of Yamaguchi and Lee, in order to control the resonance frequency of the proof mass (see, e.g., paragraphs 11, 40, 47, and 48 of Lee). See also the comments stated in paragraphs 13-14 in regards to claim 6, which are considered to be relevant here . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view Adib further in view of Yamaguchi and Kong (US 20210050289 A1) . Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Adib further in view of Yamaguchi fails to teach a magnetic structure embedded in the core below the first via opening and the second via opening. Kong (see, e.g., figs. 5A-5D), in a similar device to Chen in view of Adib further in view of Yamaguchi, teaches a magnetic structure embedded in a core ( see, e.g., paragraph 55 “FIGS. 5A-5D provide cross-sectional illustrations of a process for forming such magnetic materials in a hybrid core…” + paragraph 56 “…hybrid core 500 may be substantially similar to the hybrid core 400…” + paragraph 53 “…glass surface of the hybrid core 400…” ). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the magnetic structure of Kong within the core of Chen in view of Adib further in view of Yamaguchi, in order to take advantage of the magnetic material’s improved power delivery (see, e.g., paragraph 55 of Kong). Note the core is configured ‘below’ the first via opening and second via opening depending on the orientation of Chen (e.g., flipped fig. 2J) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view Adib further in view of Yamaguchi and McConnell (US 8915139 B1) . Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Adib further in view of Yamaguchi fails to teach a piezoelectric material is provided on a surface of the plate or a plurality of anchors. McConnell (see, e.g., fig. 3), in a similar device to Chen in view of Adib further in view of Yamaguchi, teaches a piezoelectric material ( e.g., piezoelectric plates 302 ) is provided on a surface of a plate ( e.g., proof mass 320 ). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the piezoelectric material of McConnell on the proof mass plate of Chen in view of Adib further in view of Yamaguchi in order to achieve the expected result of monitoring any dynamic properties; such as shock evaluation, seismic sensing, et cetera (taught in paragraphs 4-7 of McConnell). Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705. 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 ttps://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. /THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/561,735 (Final Rejection) Page 2 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/561,735 (Final Rejection) Page 3 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/561,735 (Final Rejection) Page 4 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/561,735 (Final Rejection) Page 5 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/561,735 (Final Rejection) Page 6 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/561,735 (Final Rejection) Page 7 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/561,735 (Final Rejection) Page 8 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/561,735 (Final Rejection) Page 9 Art Unit: 2814
Prosecution Insights