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 .
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, 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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220178696 (Kaajakari) in view of US 20180283867 (Ruohio et al).
Referring to claim 3, Kaajakari discloses a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) die comprising (Fig. 6a, [0002], and [0090]-[0102]): a plate (61) having an aperture ([0090]); wherein the plate functions as a proof mass ([0091]), an anchor (68) disposed within the aperture ([0092]); a plurality of arms (621-624) extending from the anchor (Fig. 6a and [0092]); and a plurality of resilient members (651-654), each resilient member is a . . . spring ([0095]-[0096] connecting the plate to a corresponding arm of the plurality of arms (Fig. 6a and [0094]), wherein each of the springs has a stiffness that is smaller with respect to movement of the spring along the Z-axis than with respect to movement along the X-axis and along the Y-axis (Kaajakari [0034] and [0039]-[0043], note that the Kaajakari discloses that the z-axis is perpendicular to the xy-plane with the coupling spring stiff in the coupling direction and flexible in the direction which is perpendicular to the coupling direction. Also the rotation about any axis perpendicular to the device plane is referred to in this disclosure as rotation about the z-axis.).
Kaajakari does not disclose explicitly that the resilient member is a looped or folded spring. However, Kaajakari discloses that the coupling spring could be flexible in the coupling direction and stiff in the direction which is perpendicular to the coupling direction ([0034]) and Ruohio discloses that coupling springs may be folded spring elements that are configured to be flexible along the coupling axis (e.g., the x-axis) and rigid along other axes (e.g., the y-axis and z-axis) ([0048], it is noted that the coupling folded spring of Ruohio acts like the coupling spring of Kaajakari which is flexible in the z-axis and rigid in the other axes). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a folded coupling spring as the spring in the invention of Kaajakari because it is known in the art to have the characteristics of coupling being configured to be flexible along the coupling axis and rigid along other axes similar to the spring as disclosed by Ruohio.
Considering claim 5, Kaajakari discloses wherein the plate is made from a solid layer, in which the plurality of resilient members, the anchor, and the plurality of arms are etched from the solid layer ([0037] and Fig. 6a).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220178696 (Kaajakari) in view of US 20180283867 (Ruohio et al) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 20180185592 (Hsieh et al) and US 20180230005 (Lee et al).
Regarding claim 6, Kaajakari in view of Ruohio discloses forming a MEMS device (Kaajakari [0002]).
Kaajakari in view of Ruohio does not disclose further comprising top and bottom wafers, and travel stoppers extending from the top and bottom wafers toward the plate, wherein one or more of the travel stoppers extends through the plate. However, Hsieh discloses a MEMS package configuration in which top (124) and bottom wafers (104) have travel stoppers (132a, 132b, 118a, and 118b) extending from the top and bottom wafers toward the plate (116) (Fig. 1) which advantageously reduces the likelihood of damage to the MEMS devices 114 and increases the useful life of the MEMS devices. Additionally, Lee discloses a MEMS device configuration that incorporates the use of shock stops (301) which include a plurality of pillars 301 that extend between the plate (12) and that such configuration limits the maximum displacement of the plate when the plate is subject to large amounts of force ([0054]-[0055]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kaajakari in view of Ruohio such that it has top and bottom wafers, and travel stoppers extending from the top and bottom wafers toward the plate as disclosed by Hsieh wherein one or more of the travel stoppers extends through the plate as disclosed by Lee in order to reduce the likelihood of damage to the MEMS device and limit the maximum displacement of the plate when the plate is subject to large amounts of force.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220178696 (Kaajakari) in view of US 20180283867 (Ruohio et al )as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 20190152766 (Kuang et al).
As to claim 7, Kaajakari in view of Ruohio discloses forming the plate (Fig. 6a).
Kaajakari in view of Ruohio does not disclose further comprising an electrode, wherein the electrode and the plate form a parallel plate capacitor. However, Kuang discloses a MEMS device configuration in which movable proof mass; an electrode disposed on the substrate to form a sense capacitor with a portion of the proof mass in order to provide a signal from the proof mass (Claim 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further add an electrode to form a capacitor that is capable of providing a signal from the proof mass movement.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220178696 (Kaajakari) in view of US 20180283867 (Ruohio et al) and US 20190152766 (Kuang et al).
Concerning claim 13, Kaajakari discloses a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) die comprising (Fig. 6a, [0002], and [0090]-[0102]): a proof mass (61) having an aperture disposed through a geometric center of the proof mass (Fig. 6a and [0091]); an anchor (68) disposed within the aperture (Fig. 6a); three or more arms (621-624) extending from the anchor (Fig. 6a); and three or more resilient members (651-654), wherein each of the resilient members is a . . .spring ([0095]-[0096]), each resilient member connecting the proof mass to a corresponding arm of the three or more arms (Fig. 6a).
Kaajakari does not disclose explicitly that the three or more resilient members are looped or folded springs or further comprising an electrode, wherein the electrode and the plate form a parallel plate capacitor. However, Kaajakari discloses that the coupling spring could be flexible in the coupling direction and stiff in the direction which is perpendicular to the coupling direction with the z-axis being perpendicular to the xy-plane. Also the rotation about any axis perpendicular to the device plane is referred to in this disclosure as rotation about the z-axis. ([0034]-[0041]). Ruohio discloses that coupling springs may be folded spring elements that are configured to be flexible along the coupling axis (e.g., the x-axis) and rigid along other axes (e.g., the y-axis and z-axis) ([0048], it is noted that the coupling folded spring of Ruohio acts like the coupling spring of Kaajakari which is flexible in the z-axis and rigid in the other axes). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a folded coupling spring as the spring in the invention of Kaajakari because it is known in the art to have the characteristics of coupling being configured to be flexible along the coupling axis and rigid along other axes similar to the spring as disclosed by Ruohio.
Additionally, Kuang discloses a MEMS device configuration in which movable proof mass; an electrode disposed on the substrate to form a sense capacitor with a portion of the proof mass in order to provide a signal from the proof mass (Claim 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further add an electrode to form a capacitor that is capable of providing a signal from the proof mass movement.
As to claim 10, Kaajakari in view of Ruohio and Kuang discloses wherein the plate is made from a solid layer, in which the plurality of resilient members, the anchor, and the plurality of arms are etched from the solid layer (Kaajakari [0037] and Fig. 6a).
Concerning claim 11, Kaajakari in view of Ruohio and Kuang discloses wherein a first distance between any one of the three or more resilient members and a closest outer edge of the proof mass is less than a second distance between the one resilient member and the anchor (Kaajakari Fig. 6a).
Continuing to claim 19, Kaajakari discloses a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) die comprising (Fig. 6a, [0002], and [0090]-[0102]): a proof mass (61) having an aperture disposed through a geometric center of the proof mass (Fig. 6a and [0091]); an anchor (68) disposed within the aperture (Fig. 6a); four or more rigid arms (621-624) extending from the anchor (Fig. 6a and [0092]); and four or more resilient members (651-654) (Fig. 6a and [0094]); wherein the proof mass is made from a solid layer, in which the proof mass, the four or more resilient members, and the four or more rigid arms are etched from the same layer ([0037] and Fig. 6a); and wherein each of the four or more resilient members is a . . . spring, each resilient member connecting the proof mass to a rigid arm of the four or more rigid arms (Fig. 6a).
Kaajakari does not disclose explicitly that the each of the resilient member is a looped or folded spring further comprising an electrode, wherein the electrode and the plate form a parallel plate capacitor. However, Kaajakari discloses that the coupling spring could be flexible in the coupling direction and stiff in the direction which is perpendicular to the coupling direction with the z-axis being perpendicular to the xy-plane. Also the rotation about any axis perpendicular to the device plane is referred to in this disclosure as rotation about the z-axis. ([0034]-[0041]). Ruohio discloses that coupling springs may be folded spring elements that are configured to be flexible along the coupling axis (e.g., the x-axis) and rigid along other axes (e.g., the y-axis and z-axis) ([0048], it is noted that the coupling folded spring of Ruohio acts like the coupling spring of Kaajakari which is flexible in the z-axis and rigid in the other axes). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a folded coupling spring as the spring in the invention of Kaajakari because it is known in the art to have the characteristics of coupling being configured to be flexible along the coupling axis and rigid along other axes similar to the spring as disclosed by Ruohio.
Additionally, Kuang discloses a MEMS device configuration in which movable proof mass; an electrode disposed on the substrate to form a sense capacitor with a portion of the proof mass in order to provide a signal from the proof mass (Claim 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further add an electrode to form a capacitor that is capable of providing a signal from the proof mass movement.
Considering claim 16, Kaajakari in view of Ruohio and Kuang discloses wherein a first distance between any one of the three or more resilient members and a closest outer edge of the proof mass is less than a second distance between the one resilient member and the anchor ( Kaajakari Fig. 6a).
Referring to claim 17, Kaajakari in view of Ruohio and Kuang discloses wherein the resonance frequency for translational motion of the proof mass perpendicular to the plane of the proof mass is less than the resonance frequency for translational motion along or rotational motion around any other axis (Kaajakari [0089] and [0105]).
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220178696 (Kaajakari) in view of US 20180283867 (Ruohio et al) as applied to claims 13 and 19 above, and further in view of US 20180230005 (Lee et al).
Pertaining to claims 12 and 18 (with these claims being similar in scope), Kaajakari in view of Ruohio discloses forming a MEMS device (Kaajakari [0002]).
Kaajakari in view of Ruohio does not disclose further comprising top and bottom wafers, and travel stoppers extending from the top and bottom wafers toward the plate, wherein one or more of the travel stoppers extends through the plate. However, Hsieh discloses a MEMS package configuration in which top (124) and bottom wafers (104) have travel stoppers (132a, 132b, 118a, and 118b) extending from the top and bottom wafers toward the plate (116) (Fig. 1) which advantageously reduces the likelihood of damage to the MEMS devices 114 and increases the useful life of the MEMS devices. Additionally, Lee discloses a MEMS device configuration that incorporates the use of shock stops (301) which include a plurality of pillars 301 that extend between the plate (12) and that such configuration limits the maximum displacement of the plate when the plate is subject to large amounts of force ([0054]-[0055]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kaajakari such that it has top and bottom wafers, and travel stoppers extending from the top and bottom wafers toward the plate as disclosed by Hsieh wherein one or more of the travel stoppers extends through the plate as disclosed by Lee in order to reduce the likelihood of damage to the MEMS device and limit the maximum displacement of the plate when the plate is subject to large amounts of force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kaajakari is absent any description about the flexibility or stiffness of the springs along the Z-axis. However, the examiner disagrees. Kaajakari discloses that the z-axis is perpendicular to the xy-plane with the coupling spring stiff in the coupling direction and flexible in the direction which is perpendicular to the coupling direction. Also the rotation about any axis perpendicular to the device plane is referred to in this disclosure as rotation about the z-axis. the term transduction/suspension structure refers to a structure which may contain a piezoelectric force transducer on an elongated beam. The piezoelectric force transducer may be configured either to bend said elongated beam in the device plane or to measure how much said elongated beam bends in the device plane. A transducer which performs the former function may be called a drive transducer, and a device which performs the latter function may be called a sense transducer. The sense transducers may be used to detect the gyroscope vibrations and thereby to generate sense signal. This sense signal may be used to generate drive signal that is applied to drive transduces to maintain desired mass trajectory. Furthermore, in frequency modulated gyroscope operation, the sense signal frequency is used to infer rotation rate (movement in the z-axis). Therefore the arguments are not found to be persuasive and the rejection stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VALERIE N NEWTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, CHAD DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VALERIE N NEWTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2897
03/16/26/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897