DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Applicant Amendment on 12/30/2025.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “wherein the elastic connecting-portion comprises at least three elongated beam structures respectively defied by at least three through holes on at least three sides of the vibrating-portion in the area where the patterned first device material layer overlaps the cavity” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 6 – 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 112033526 A, machine translation merged to document) in view of Je (US 2014/0084394).
Regarding claim 1, He et al. teaches a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) vibration sensor, comprising (Figure 4, corresponding to pages 7 – 9 of machine translation):
a substrate 100 (with dielectric layer as shown in Fig. 8b), comprising a first supporting-portion (portion of substrate 100 overlapping with area 230) and a cavity (the cavity under layer 200 between areas 230); and
a sensing-device disposed on the substrate, comprising:
a first sensing-unit 210, comprising:
a second supporting-portion 230, disposed on the first supporting-portion and connected to the first supporting-portion via a first dielectric material (sacrificial layer between substrate 100 and layer 200); and
a vibrating-portion 210, disposed on the cavity, and connected to the second supporting-portion 230 via an elastic connecting-portion 220;
a second sensing-unit 310, comprising:
a sensing-portion 310, disposed on the vibrating-portion 210, wherein a gap is forming between the sensing-portion 310 and the vibrating-portion 210; and
a third supporting-portion (portion of layer 300 overlapping area 230), disposed on the second supporting-portion 230, connected to the sensing-portion 310, and connected to the second supporting- portion 230 via a second dielectric material (sacrificial layer between layer 300 and 200);
a first metal pad 520, disposed on the third supporting-portion and electrically coupled with the first sensing-unit 210; and
a second metal pad 510, disposed on the third supporting-portion and electrically coupled with the second sensing-unit 310,
wherein the first sensing-unit 210 is included in a patterned first device material layer 200,
wherein the elastic connecting-portion 220 comprises at least two elongated beam structures (occurs on both sides, also it is believed the present application is describing a spring structure where the “beam structure” is elongated by the meandering shape of a spring) respectively defined by at least two through holes on at least two sides of the vibrating-portion 210 (adjacent 220) where the patterned first device material layer overlaps the cavity; one end of each of the at least two elongated beam structures 220 extends from the second supporting-portion 230 laterally to above of the cavity (cavity extends under layer 200; portions 220 connect second supporting-portion 230 to 210); and the other end of each of the at least two the elongated beam structures 220 is connected to the vibrating-portion 210.
He et al. teaches at least two elongated beam structures 220 (occurs on both sides of Figure 4), but does not appear to teach at least three elongated beam structures. Je teaches (Figure 3, Paragraph 0032) that vibrating portion 26 can be connected by four spring structures 24b defined by at least four through holes on at least four sides of the vibrating-portion 26. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of He et al. to have at least three elongated beam structures (spring structures) respectively defined by at least three through holes on at least three sides of the vibrating-portion in the manner as taught by Je (instead of two as cited above) since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 2, He et al. teaches that the second sensing-unit 310 is included in a patterned second device material layer 300.
Regarding claim 6, He et al. teaches that the second sensing-unit 310 comprises a plurality of through holes 311 connecting to the gap.
Regarding claim 7, He et al. further teaches a mass-block 400 disposed in the cavity, connected to the vibrating-portion 210 via a third dielectric material (sacrificial material between layer 200 and layer 400), and shifts within a limited range in the cavity in conjunction with actions of the first sensing-unit 210.
Regarding claim 8, He et al. teaches that the mass-block 400 and the first supporting-portion (portion of substrate in area 230) are made of the same material (third paragraph of 7th page); and the third dielectric material and the first dielectric material are made of the same material (sacrificial material).
Regarding claim 9, He et al. teaches that the third supporting-portion (portion of layer 300 in area 230) includes a first part and a second part that are electrically isolated from each other (on both sides); the first metal pad 520 is disposed on the first part; and the second metal pad 510 is disposed on the second part.
Regarding claim 10, He et al. teaches that the second dielectric material and the first dielectric material are made of the same material (both of sacrificial layer of Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, He et al. further teaches a plurality of dimples/bumps 301 disposed between the second sensing-unit 310 and the first sensing-unit 200.
Regarding claim 12, He et al. teaches a protection layer 303 formed on a first surface (bottom) of the second sensing-unit facing 310 the first sensing-unit 210 or on a second surface (top) of the second sensing-unit 310 away from the first sensing-unit 210.
Regarding claim 14, He et al. teaches that the first sensing-unit 210 further comprises a second elastic connecting-portion 220 (element 220 is on both sides) connecting second supporting-portion 230 and the vibrating-portion 210.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 112033526 A, machine translation merged to document) in view of Je (US 2014/0084394) as applied to claim 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Barzen et al. (US 2016/0192086).
Regarding claim 3, He et al. teaches that the patterned first device material layer 200 comprises a semiconductor material (polysilicon, pp. 7). He et al. does not teach that the patterned first device material layer comprises both metal and a semiconductor material. Barzen et al. teaches that a patterned first device material layer (membrane, Paragraph 0069) can be comprised of silicide, which is an alloy of a metal and silicon.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicide for the patterned first device material layer 200 of He et al. in the manner as taught by Barzen et al. since silicide is a well known conductor used for MEMS membranes. Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), also see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, (1960)). Please also see MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, He et al. teaches that the patterned second device material layer 300 comprises a semiconductor material (polysilicon, pp. 7). He et al. does not teach that the patterned second device material layer 300 comprises both metal and a semiconductor material. Barzen et al. teaches that a patterned second device material layer (backplate, Paragraph 0069) can be comprised of silicide, which is an alloy of a metal and silicon.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicide for the patterned second device material layer 200 of He et al. in the manner as taught by Barzen et al. since silicide is a well known conductor used for MEMS backplates. Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), also see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, (1960)). Please also see MPEP §2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 SUN MI KIM KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM MST.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
/SUN MI KIM KING/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights