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 RCE amendments filed on 01/16/2026.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Amendment Status
The RCE submission filed on 1/16/2026 as an amendment in reply to the Office action mailed on 10/16/2025 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-10, with remaining claims 11-20 remaining withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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).
Regarding claim 1, Chen (see, e.g., figures. 1A + 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 via (see, e.g., 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) 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.
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 as desired.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
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).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Adib further in view of Lee (US 20130154439 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Adib fails to teach a lid over the plate.
Lee (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Chen in view of Adib, 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, 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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view Adib further in view of Kong (US 20210050289 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Adib fails to teach a magnetic structure embedded in the core below the via.
Kong (see, e.g., figs. 5A-5D), in a similar device to Chen in view of Adib, 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, in order to take advantage of the magnetic material’s improved power delivery (see, e.g., paragraph 55 of Kong).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view Adib further in view of McConnell (US 8915139 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Adib fails to teach a piezoelectric material is provided on a surface of the plate or the anchors.
McConnell (see, e.g., fig. 3), in a similar device to Chen in view of Adib, 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 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS WILSON MCCOY whose telephone number is (571)272-0282. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:00 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at (571) 272-1705. 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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814