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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10 and 19-20) in the
reply filed on December 3, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CPR
1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the
presence of all possible minor errors. The applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
line 7, “the wall” should be --the at least one of the walls--
Claim 4
line 1, “the middle” should be --a middle--
Claim 8
lines 1-2, “a protruding portion” should be --the protruding portion--
Claim 19
line 11, “the wall” should be --the at least one of the walls--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Yao et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20220264229; hereinafter
“Yao”) in view of Hui et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210021936; hereinafter “Hui”).
Regarding claim 1, Yao teaches a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems microphone, comprising: a substrate (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, 401) including walls (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, walls of 401 defining 406) defining a cavity (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, 406) and at least one of the walls (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, wall(s) of 401 defining 406 defining area where 601 is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401) defining (Figs. 5/7-8) an anchor region (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, area where 601 is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401); a piezoelectric film layer (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5-6/17, 603/604 of 601; [0086]) supported (Figs. 5/7-8/18) by the substrate (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, 401) at the anchor region (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, area where 601 is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401); and an electrode (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 7, 605 of 601) disposed over (Figs. 5/7) the piezoelectric film layer (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5-6/17, 603/604 of 601; [0086]) and adjacent (Figs. 5/7) the anchor region (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, area where 601 is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401) and including (Figs. 5/7) an edge (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 7, edge of 605 of 601) adjacent (Figs. 5/7) the anchor region (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, area where 601 is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401) having (Figs. 5-8) two straight portions (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 7, straight portions of edge of 605 of 601). Yao does not teach a protruding portion between the two straight portions, and the wall of the cavity that defines the anchor region including an indent corresponding in shape to the protruding portion of the electrode.
Hui, however, does teach a protruding portion (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, protruding portion 304’ of 302’) between (Fig. 5) the two straight portions (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, straight portions of edge of 302’), and the wall (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 6, wall(s) of 301’ defining 320’ defining area where 312’/309’/314’ in combination is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401) of the cavity (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 6, 320’) that defines (Fig. 6) the anchor region (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 6, area where 312’/309’/314’ in combination is coupled to and supported by a wall of 301’) including (Fig. 5) an indent (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, indent of 301’ for protrusion 304’) corresponding (Fig. 5) in shape (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, shape of indent of 301’ for protrusion 304’) to the protruding portion (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, protruding portion 304’ of 302’) of the electrode (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, 302’).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yao to include the protruding portion of Hui because it would reduce the capacitance value of the electrode thereby improving sensitivity (Hui, [0105]; [0109]).
Regarding claim 2, Yao as modified teaches the microphone of claim 1. Yao does not teach wherein the protruding portion of the electrode defines a curve.
Hui, however, does teach wherein the protruding portion (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, protruding portion 304’ of 302’) of the electrode (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, 302’) defines (Fig. 5) a curve (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, curve defined by protruding portion 304’ of 302’).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yao to include the protruding portion of Hui because it would reduce the capacitance value of the electrode thereby improving sensitivity (Hui, [0105]; [0109]).
Regarding claim 3, Yao as modified teaches the microphone of claim 1. Yao does not teach wherein the protruding portion of the electrode defines a polygon.
Hui, however, does teach wherein the protruding portion (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, protruding portion 304’ of 302’) of the electrode (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, 302’) defines (Fig. 5) a polygon (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, polygon defined by protruding portion 304’ of 302’).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yao to include the protruding portion of Hui because it would reduce the capacitance value of the electrode thereby improving sensitivity (Hui, [0105]; [0109]).
Regarding claim 4, Yao as modified teaches the microphone of claim 1. Yao does not teach wherein the protruding portion is in the middle of the edge of the electrode.
Hui, however, does teach wherein the protruding portion (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, protruding portion 304’ of 302’) is in the middle of the edge (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, middle of edge of 302’) of the electrode (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, 302’).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yao to include the protruding portion of Hui because it would reduce the capacitance value of the electrode thereby improving sensitivity (Hui, [0105]; [0109]).
Regarding claim 5, Yao as modified teaches the microphone of claim 1 wherein the piezoelectric film layer (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5-6/17, 603/604 of 601; [0086]) and electrode (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 7, 605 of 601) define a beam (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5-8, 601), wherein the beam (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5-8, 601) is cantilevered (Figs. 5-8) such that it has a free end (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5/7-8/18, free end of 601) and a fixed end (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5/7-8/18, fixed end of 601).
Regarding claim 6, Yao as modified teaches the microphone of claim 5 wherein the beam (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5-8, 601) further comprises a second piezoelectric layer (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 18, second piezoelectric layer of 1803).
Regarding claim 7, Yao as modified teaches the microphone of claim 1 wherein the piezoelectric film layer (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5-6/17, 603/604 of 601; [0086]) has a triangular shape (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5-6/17, triangular shape of 603/604 of 601; [0086]).
Regarding claim 8, Yao as modified teaches the microphone of claim 7 wherein the electrode (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 7, 605 of 601) is a truncated triangle (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 7/17, 605 of 601; [0118]), such that the free end (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5/7-8/18, free end of 601) of the piezoelectric film layer Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5/7-8/17-18, 603/604 of 601; [0086]) is exposed (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5/7-8/18, exposed free end of 601; [0086]). Yao does not teach a protruding portion.
Hui, however, does teach a protruding portion (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, protruding portion 304’ of 302’).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yao to include the protruding portion of Hui because it would reduce the capacitance value of the electrode thereby improving sensitivity (Hui, [0105]; [0109]).
Regarding claim 9, Yao as modified teaches the microphone of claim 1. Yao does not teach wherein the protruding portion of the electrode has a width of 300 micrometers and a depth of 5 micrometers.
That being said, it is not inventive to discover an optimum values for the width and depth of the protruding portion of the electrode, mainly, a width of 300 micrometers and a depth of 5 micrometers, through routine experimentation. (“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (‘The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.’); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” [MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A)].).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Yao’s microphone would be a more complete description of the invention had it included optimum values for the width and depth of the protruding portion of the electrode. Therefore, claim 9 would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made would have understood that it is desirable and beneficial to provide the optimum values for the width and depth of the protruding portion of the electrode.
Regarding claim 10, Yao as modified teaches the microphone of claim 1 further comprising at least one additional electrode (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 7, 606 of 601).
Regarding claim 19, Yao teaches a wireless mobile device comprising: one or more antennas (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 3-4, antennas of wireless mobile device 300; [Abstract]); a front end system (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 3-4, front end system of 300; [Abstract]) that communicates (Figs. 3-4) with the one or more antennas (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 3-4, antennas of wireless mobile device; [Abstract]); and one or more piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems microphones (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 3, 301; [Abstract]; [0058]), each microphone (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 3, 301; [Abstract]; [0058]) including: a substrate (Figs. 4-5, 401) having (Figs. 5-8) walls (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, walls of 401 defining 406) defining a cavity (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, 406) and at least one of the walls (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, wall(s) of 401 defining 406 defining area where 601 is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401) defining (Figs. 5/7-8) an anchor region (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, area where 601 is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401); a piezoelectric film layer (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5-6/17, 603/604 of 601; [0086]) supported (Figs. 5/7-8/18) by the substrate (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, 401) at the anchor region (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, area where 601 is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401); an electrode (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 7, 605 of 601) disposed over (Figs. 5/7) the piezoelectric film layer (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Figs. 5-6/17, 603/604 of 601; [0086]) and adjacent (Figs. 5/7) the anchor region (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, area where 601 is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401) and having (Figs. 5/7) an edge (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 7, edge of 605 of 601) adjacent (Figs. 5/7) the anchor region (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 5, area where 601 is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401) including (Figs. 5/7) two straight portions (Figs. 4-8/17-18; Fig. 7, straight portions of edge of 605 of 601). Yao does not teach a protruding portion between the two straight portions, and the wall of the cavity that defines the anchor region having an indent corresponding in shape to the protruding portion of the electrode.
Hui, however, does teach a protruding portion (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, protruding portion 304’ of 302’) between (Fig. 5) the two straight portions (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, straight portions of edge of 302’), and the wall (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 6, wall(s) of 301’ defining 320’ defining area where 312’/309’/314’ in combination is coupled to and supported by a wall of 401) of the cavity (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 6, 320’) that defines (Fig. 6) the anchor region (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 6, area where 312’/309’/314’ in combination is coupled to and supported by a wall of 301’) having (Fig. 5) an indent (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, indent of 301’ for protrusion 304’) corresponding (Fig. 5) in shape (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, shape of indent of 301’ for protrusion 304’) to the protruding portion (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, protruding portion 304’ of 302’) of the electrode (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, 302’).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yao to include the protruding portion of Hui because it would reduce the capacitance value of the electrode thereby improving sensitivity (Hui, [0105]; [0109]).
Regarding claim 20, Yao as modified teaches the wireless mobile device of claim 19. Yao does not teach wherein the protruding portion of the electrode defines a curve.
Hui, however, does teach wherein the protruding portion (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, protruding portion 304’ of 302’) of the electrode (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, 302’) defines (Fig. 5) a curve (Figs. 5-6; Fig. 5, curve defined by protruding portion 304’ of 302’).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yao to include the protruding portion of Hui because it would reduce the capacitance value of the electrode thereby improving sensitivity (Hui, [0105]; [0109]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MONICA MATA
whose telephone number is (571) 272-8782. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Dedei Hammond, can be reached on (571) 270-7938. 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 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).
/MONICA MATA/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
30 January 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837