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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/05/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 13 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 13 is directed to a species in which neither the first nor second diaphragm comprise an air leakage structure. This mutually exclusive with originally presented claim 2 which requires at least one of the diaphragms to comprise an air leakage structure.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 13 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2020/0107130 A1; hereinafter Cheng) in view of Halteren et al. (US 2008/0192962 A1; hereinafter Halteren) and Kuntzman et al. (US 2017/0230757 A1; hereinafter Kuntzman).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a MEMS chip (“MEMS microphone 100” in Fig. 2, ¶ 0023), comprising:
a substrate (“substrate 40” in Fig. 2, ¶ 0023) with a back cavity (“opening 45” which extends to the back of the substrate, ¶ 0019), and a plate capacitor bank (combination of “first capacitor element (formed between the first diaphragm 101 and the first backplate 111)” and “second capacitor element (formed between the second diaphragm 102 and the second backplate 112)”, ¶ 0030) provided on the substrate (see Fig. 2);
the plate capacitor bank comprising a first plate capacitor structure (“second capacitor element (formed between the second diaphragm 102 and the second backplate 112)”, ¶ 0030) and a second capacitor structure (“first capacitor element (formed between the first diaphragm 101 and the first backplate 111)”, ¶ 0030) located below the first plate capacitor structure (see Fig. 2) and arranged in parallel with the first plate capacitor structure (“parallel” in ¶ 0030);
wherein the first plate capacitor structure includes a first diaphragm (“second diaphragm 102”, ¶ 0030) and a first back electrode (“second backplate 112”, ¶ 0030); and
wherein the second plate capacitor structure includes a second diaphragm (“first diaphragm 101”, ¶ 0030) and a second back electrode (“second backplate 111”, ¶ 0030); and
the first back electrode is located at a side of the first diaphragm away from the second plate capacitor structure.
Cheng does not disclose that the second back electrode is located at a side of the second diaphragm away from the first plate capacitor structure.
Halteren, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a plate capacitor bank (combination of “diaphragm elements 38, 40” and “plate capacitor elements 42a, 42b”, ¶ 0031) provided on the substrate (see Fig. 3A);
the plate capacitor bank comprising a first plate capacitor structure (combination of diaphragm 38 and plate capacitor 42a, ¶ 0031) and a second capacitor structure (combination of diaphragm 40 and plate capacitor 42b, ¶ 0031) located below the first plate capacitor structure (see Fig. 3A) and arranged in parallel with the first plate capacitor structure (see Fig. 3A);
wherein the first plate capacitor structure includes a first diaphragm (diaphragm 38, ¶ 0031) and a first back electrode (plate capacitor element 42a, ¶ 0031); and
wherein the second plate capacitor structure includes a second diaphragm (diaphragm 40, ¶ 0031) and a second back electrode (plate capacitor element 42b, ¶ 0031); wherein
the first back electrode is located at a side of the first diaphragm away from the second plate capacitor structure (see Fig. 1B), and the second back electrode is located at a side of the second diaphragm away from the first plate capacitor structure (see Fig. 1B).
As such, while Cheng does not disclose the particular arrangement of the diaphragms and back electrodes as claimed the arrangement is disclosed in the prior art (see discussion of Halteren, above) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to switch the second back electrode and second diaphragm of Cheng such that the second back electrode is located at a side of the second diaphragm away from the first plate capacitor structure as it amounts to an obvious rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Cheng does not disclose the inclusion of a restraining portion as claimed.
Kuntzman, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a restraining portion (unlabeled protrusions on the underside of diaphragm 402 in Fig. 4). There was a benefit to forming such restraining portions in that they reduce stiction between the components, a known disadvantage in the art (see ¶ 0022 of Cheng). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form a restraining portion at a side of the first diaphragm of Cheng in view of Halteren adjacent to the second diaphragm, wherein the restraining portion is spaced apart from the second diaphragm, and is configured to contact the second diaphragm for preventing the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm from adhering to each other for this benefit.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng in view of Halteren and Kuntzman discloses the MEMS chip of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cheng further discloses wherein one or more of the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm comprises an air leakage structure (“air holes 155”, ¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng in view of Halteren and Kuntzman discloses the MEMS chip of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cheng further discloses that a hermetic space is formed between the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm (“empty space 162”, which is between the two diaphragms as seen in Fig. 2, is a hermetic space as discussed in ¶ 0029).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng in view of Halteren and Kuntzman discloses the MEMS chip of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cheng further discloses a first restraining portion (“third seal structure 143”, ¶ 0029) for restraining deformation of the first diaphragm toward the first back electrode (as the first restraining portion is a physical material connected to and between the first diaphragm and the first back electrode, it is interpreted as restraining deformation between the first diaphragm and the first back electrode, ¶ 0029) is provided between the first back electrode and the first diaphragm (see Fig. 2); and
a second restraining portion (“first seal structure 141”, ¶ 0029) for restraining deformation of the second diaphragm toward the second back electrode (as the second restraining portion is a physical material connected to and between the second diaphragm and the second back electrode, it is interpreted as restraining deformation between the second diaphragm and the second back electrode, ¶ 0029) is provided between the second back electrode and the second diaphragm (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng in view of Halteren and Kuntzman discloses the MEMS chip of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cheng further discloses that, when in a neutral state, the spacing between diaphragm and back electrode layers is constant (see Fig. 2). As such, when the diaphragms are in an active state wherein each diaphragm is flexed toward its respective back electrode (see Fig. 1B), the distance between the diaphragm and its respective back electrode is reduced and, therefore, a spacing between the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm is greater than a spacing between the first diaphragm and the first back electrode, and wherein the spacing between the first diaphragm and the second diaphragm is greater than a spacing between the second diaphragm and the second back electrode.
Regarding claim 11, Cheng in view of Halteren and Kuntzman discloses the MEMS chip of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cheng further discloses the first back electrode comprises a first non-conductive layer (“silicon nitride” in ¶ 0046).
Cheng does not disclose the inclusion of a first restraining portion as claimed.
Kuntzman, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a restraining portion (unlabeled protrusions on the underside of back plate 406 in Fig. 4). There was a benefit to forming such restraining portions in that they reduce stiction between the components, a known disadvantage in the art (see ¶ 0022 of Cheng). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form a first restraining portion at a side of a first non-conductive layer of the first back electrode of Cheng in view of Halteren adjacent to the first diaphragm and is spaced apart from the first diaphragm, and is configured to contact the first diaphragm for preventing the first diaphragm from contacting a first conductive layer of the first back electrode for this benefit.
Regarding claim 12, Cheng in view of Halteren and Kuntzman discloses the MEMS chip of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cheng further discloses the first back electrode comprises a first non-conductive layer (“silicon nitride” in (¶ 0046).
Cheng does not disclose the inclusion of a second restraining portion as claimed.
Kuntzman, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a restraining portion (unlabeled protrusions on the underside of diaphragm 402 in Fig. 4). There was a benefit to forming such restraining portions in that they reduce stiction between the components, a known disadvantage in the art (see ¶ 0022 of Cheng). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form a second restraining portion at a side of the second diaphragm of Cheng in view of Halteren adjacent to the second back electrode, wherein the restraining portion is spaced apart from the second back electrode, and is configured to and is configured to contact a second non-conductive layer of the second back electrode (“silicon nitride” in ¶ 0046 of Cheng) for preventing the second diaphragm from contacting a second conductive layer of the second back electrode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kuntzman does not disclose diaphragm-to-diaphragm adhesion. This argument is not persuasive as rationale different from Applicant’s is permissible (MPEP 2144(IV)).
Applicant further argues that a restraining portion would destroy the core inventive concept of Cheng. This argument is not persuasive as Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support this allegation.
Applicant further argues that the stiction problem of Cheng is different from the diaphragm-to-diaphragm adhesion problem addressed by the present application. This argument is not persuasive as rationale different from Applicant’s is permissible (MPEP 2144(IV)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights