Attorney Docket Number: NAUP4070USA
Filing Date: 08/02/2022
Claimed Priority Date: 06/21/2022 (TW 111123061)
Inventors: Chang et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 08/12/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 08/12/2025 in reply to the previous Office action mailed on 05/19/2025 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 Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-9, with claims 6-7, 11-17, and 19 remaining withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 1 recite.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required. No new matter should be entered
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2023/0339742).
Regarding claim 1, Chen (see, e.g., figs. 1A-1B) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) microphone M comprising:
a substrate 11;
a membrane 14 supported relative to the substrate, wherein the membrane 14 comprises an inner portion (rightmost 14 shown in fig. 1B) and an outer portion (leftmost 14 shown in fig. 1B;
a first spacer (rightmost 16 shown in fig. 1B) disposed on a sidewall of the inner portion (rightmost 14 shown in fig. 1B) directly facing the outer portion (leftmost 14 shown in fig. 1B);
a second spacer (leftmost 16 shown in fig. 1B) disposed on a sidewall of the outer portion (leftmost 14 shown in fig. 1B) directly facing the inner portion (rightmost 14 shown in fig. 1B); and
a slit S between the first spacer and the second spacer
wherein:
the first spacer (rightmost 16 shown in fig. 1B) does not extend onto a top surface or a bottom surface of the inner portion; and
the second spacer (leftmost 16 shown in fig. 1B) does not extend onto a top surface or a bottom surface of the outer portion
Regarding claim 18, Chen (see, e.g., figs. 1A-1B) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) microphone M comprising:
a substrate 11;
a membrane 14 supported relative to the substrate;
an opening S penetrating through an entire thickness of the membrane; and
a spacer 16 disposed on a sidewall of the opening, wherein the spacer does not extend onto a top surface or a bottom surface of the membrane
Regarding claim 2, Chen (see, e.g., pars.0053/ll.8 and 0061/ll.7-10) shows that the substrate 11 is a silicon substrate and the membrane 14 is a polysilicon membrane.
Regarding claim 3, Chen (see, e.g., figs. 1A-1B) shows:
a cavity 11A in the substrate 11 and under the membrane 14;
a backplate 13 above the membrane, wherein the membrane comprises a top surface facing the backplate; and
an air gap G between the membrane and the backplate
Regarding claim 4, Chen (see, e.g., figs. 1A-1B) shows that the slit S communicates the air gap G with the cavity 11A.
Regarding claim 8, Chen (see, e.g., par.0061/ll.9-12) shows that the first spacer (rightmost 16 shown in fig. 1B) comprises polysilicon or silicon nitride.
Regarding claim 9, Chen (see, e.g., par.0061/ll.9-12) shows that the second spacer (leftmost 16 shown in fig. 1B) comprises polysilicon or silicon nitride.
Regarding claim 10, Chen (see, e.g., figs. 1A-1B and par.0054/ll.10-11) shows a silicon oxide layer 12 between the outer portion (leftmost 14 shown in fig. 1B) and the substrate 11.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lin (US 2020/0102209).
Regarding claim 5, Chen shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 8 and 11 above) and teaches an embodiment wherein a first and second spacer are flush with the top surface of a membrane (see, e.g., figs. 1A-1B). Furthermore, Chen teaches through varying embodiments that Chen’s spacers 16 may be shaped to comprise multitudinous designs and heights without sacrificing the functionality of Chen’s microphone (see, e.g., Chen: figs. 2A-4). Chen, however, fails to explicitly specify that Chen’s first spacer and second spacer protrude from the top surface of Chen’s membrane. Lin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a similar device to Chen, wherein a first spacer 55 and second spacer 55 protrude from the top surface of an inner portion and outer portion 58, respectively, of a membrane 50.
Lin is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that having a first and second spacer protrude from the top surface of a membrane would be equivalent to having a first and second spacer flush with the top surface of a membrane, and that such differences would result in no expected changes in the performance of the MEMS microphone of Chen. That is, the spacer designs of both Lin and Chen would yield the predictable result of decreasing the size of an air gap opening present in a membrane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a first and second spacer protrude from the top surface of a membrane, as taught by Lin, or to have a first and second spacer flush with the top surface of a membrane, as taught by Chen in figs. 1A-1B, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of decreasing the size of an air gap opening present in a membrane. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. --,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Additionally, regarding claim 5, it is further noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the height of spacers designed such that the spacers protrude from the top surface of a membrane, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the spacer shape/configuration disclosed by Chen as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular spacer shape/configuration claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous spacer shapes/configurations that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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 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.
/Shamita S Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814