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 Objections
Claim 24 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 10. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8-10, 17-20 and 23-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In the instant case, Claims 1 and 23 states “piezoelectric layer spanning a cavity without a support structure positioned between a center region of the first piezoelectric layer and the cavity”. The court has held that “any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining."). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In describing alternative features, the applicant need not articulate advantages or disadvantages of of each feature in order to later exclude the alternative features. See Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356-57, 116 USPQ2d 2006, 2010-11 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 20, 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DUBOIS et al. (JP 2009-260723), (hereinafter, DUBOIS).
PNG
media_image1.png
255
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RE Claim 1, DUBOIS discloses in FIGS. 1-8 a MEMS-based piezoelectric transducer “microphone and an ultrasonic sensor” with laminated upper and lower electrodes over a piezoelectric layer, where in the upper and lower electrodes have different Young’s modulus. DUBOIS discloses in FIG. 1 a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, comprising:
a first piezoelectric layer 4 spanning a cavity without a support structure positioned between a center region of first piezoelectric layer and the cavity, referring to FIG. 1 above;
a first metal layer 5 adjacent the first piezoelectric layer 4 and including a first metal “aluminum, titanium or gold”;
a second metal layer 3 including a second metal “molybdenum”, the first and second metals having different properties “different Young’s modulus” to compensate for deflection due to thermal stress of any or all of the piezoelectric layer 4, the first metal layer 5, and second metal layer 3. Since the first and second metal layers 5 and 3 have different Young’s modulus, the compensation of deflection due to thermal stress is inherently met, since the first metal layer 5 made of “aluminum, titanium or gold” have different thermal properties than the second metal layer 3, which is made of “molybdenum”; and
a substrate 1 including at least one wall defining a cavity and supporting an outer edge of the layers first piezoelectric layer 4 in an anchor region, the at least one cavity wall including a silicon wall and a silicon dioxide layer 2, the silicon dioxide layer between the silicon wall and the first piezoelectric layer 4 in the anchor region, referring to FIG. 1.
RE Claim 8, DUBOIS discloses a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, wherein the piezoelectric and metal layers 4 and 5, 3, respectively, form a membrane that spans the cavity, referring to FIG. 1.
RE Claims 10 and 24, DUBOIS discloses a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, wherein the second metal layer 3 is composed of a metal “molybdenum” with a higher Young’s modulus than the first metal layer 5 “Aluminum or gold”.
RE Claim 20, DUBOIS discloses a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, wherein the device is a microphone [abstract].
RE Claim 22, DUBOIS discloses a method of manufacturing a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, referring to “example 1”, the method comprising:
providing a substrate 1 with at least one cavity wall defining a cavity, the at least one cavity wall supporting an outer edge of a first piezoelectric layer 4 in an anchor region, the at least one cavity wall including a silicon wall and a silicon dioxide layer 2, referring to FIG. 1, the silicon dioxide layer 2 between the silicon wall and the first piezoelectric layer 4 in the anchor region;
depositing a first metal layer 3 including a first metal “molybdenum”, a first piezoelectric layer 4 “aluminum nitride” and a second metal layer 5 on the substrate 1, the second metal layer including a second metal “aluminum, titanium or gold”, the first and second metals having different properties “different Young’s modulus” to compensate deflection due to thermal stress of any or all of the piezoelectric layer 4, the first metal layer 3, and second metal layer 4. Since the first and second metal layers 3 and 5 have different Young’s modulus, the compensation of deflection due to thermal stress is inherently met, since the first metal layer 5 made of “aluminum, titanium or gold” have different thermal properties than the second metal layer 3, which is made of “molybdenum”.
RE Claim 26, DUBOIS discloses a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, wherein the second metal layer 3 is composed of a metal “molybdenum” with a higher Young’s modulus than the first metal layer 5 “Aluminum or gold”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 9, 17, 19, 25 and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUBOIS et al. (JP 2009-260723), (hereinafter, DUBOIS) in view of Grosh et al. (US 2015/0350792), (hereinafter, Grosh).
RE Claims 9 and 28, DUBOIS does not disclose piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, wherein the piezoelectric and metal layers form a cantilever that extends across at least a portion of the cavity.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Grosh discloses a MEMS-based piezoelectric microphone with dual piezoelectric layer sandwiched between three electrode structure, forming a stacked cantilever beam or a diaphragm to make the microphone, referring to FIG. 3b [0005, 0010, 0038 and 0051].
Therefore, it would have obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant application to use the cantilever structure to make the microphone of DUBOIS disclosure in order to control its performance, as disclosed by Grosh [0006 and 0010].
RE Claim 17, DUBOIS does not disclose a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, wherein the first piezoelectric layer is 300 nanometers thick and the first and second metal layers are each 30 nanometers thick.
However, DUBOIS discloses that the optimum thickness/dimensions of the first and second metal and piezoelectric layers will depend on their rigidity, i.e. their Young’s modulus values [page 4, example 1], hence result effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant application to use the claimed thicknesses, absent unexpected results, as being result effective variables, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
RE Claims 19 and 29, DUBOIS does not disclose a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, wherein the radius of the first piezoelectric layer is at least 400 micrometers.
However, DUBOIS discloses a ring-shaped membrane, and that the optimum thickness/dimensions of the first and second metal and piezoelectric layers will depend on their rigidity, i.e. their Young’s modulus values [page 4, example 1], hence result effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant application to use the claimed membrane radius, absent unexpected results, as being result effective variables, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
RE Claims 25 and 27, DUBOIS does not disclose a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, further comprising a second piezoelectric layer adjacent the first or second metal layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Grosh discloses a microphone has a transducing element comprising a piezoelectric layer deposited over a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer deposited over piezoelectric material, wherein multiple molybdenum electrodes sandwiching two piezoelectric layers 32, referring to FIG. 3b, wherein a second piezoelectric layer 32 adjacent the first or second molybdenum metal layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the second piezoelectric layer of Grosh disclosure for DUBOIS device in order to maximize output energy of the device, as disclosed by Grosh disclosure [0071].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUBOIS et al. (JP 2009-260723), (hereinafter, DUBOIS) in view of Amano et al. (US 2005/0193822), (hereinafter, Amano)
RE Claim 21, DUBOIS does not disclose a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, wherein the device is a pressure sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Amano discloses a piezoelectric cantilever pressure sensor has a substrate and a piezoelectric cantilever having a base portion attached to the substrate and a beam portion suspended over a cavity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the instant application to use the piezoelectric device of DUBOIS disclosure as pressure sensor in order to achieve better device sensitivity as disclosed by Amano [0007].
Claim(s) 23 and 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUBOIS et al. (JP 2009-260723), (hereinafter, DUBOIS) in view of STEPHANOU et al. (US 2013/0051586), (hereinafter, STEPHANOU).
RE Claim 23, DUBOIS discloses in FIGS. 1-8 a MEMS-based piezoelectric transducer “microphone and an ultrasonic sensor” with laminated upper and lower electrodes over a piezoelectric layer, where in the upper and lower electrodes have different Young’s modulus. DUBOIS discloses in FIG. 1 a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device, comprising:
a first piezoelectric layer 4 spanning a cavity without a support structure positioned between a center region of first piezoelectric layer and the cavity, referring to FIG. 1 above;
a first metal layer 5 adjacent the first piezoelectric layer 4 and including a first metal “aluminum, titanium or gold”;
a second metal layer 3 including a second metal “molybdenum”, the first and second metals having different properties “different Young’s modulus” to compensate for deflection due to thermal stress of any or all of the piezoelectric layer 4, the first metal layer 5, and second metal layer 3. Since the first and second metal layers 5 and 3 have different Young’s modulus, the compensation of deflection due to thermal stress is inherently met, since the first metal layer 5 made of “aluminum, titanium or gold” have different thermal properties than the second metal layer 3, which is made of “molybdenum”; and
a substrate 1 including at least one wall defining a cavity and supporting an outer edge of the layers first piezoelectric layer 4 in an anchor region, the at least one cavity wall including a silicon wall and a silicon dioxide layer 2, the silicon dioxide layer between the silicon wall and the first piezoelectric layer 4 in the anchor region, referring to FIG. 1.
DUBOIS does not disclose wireless mobile device comprising:
one or more antennas; and a front-end system that communicates with the one or more antennas.
However, in the same field of endeavor, STEPHANOU discloses an apparatus such as glass-encapsulated microphone for detecting sound in electronic devices, e.g. mobile telephones, has electromechanical MEMS-based microphone device, which is positioned in a recess at edge of a cover glass. STEPHANOU discloses one or more antennas 43, referring to FIG. 19B;
a front-end system that communicates with the one or more antennas 43, referring to FIG. 19B.
therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the STEPHANOU disclosed wireless compunction system with DUBOIS disclosed microphone as an integral part of a wireless communication mobile device such mobile phone.
RE Claim 30, DUBOIS in view of STEPHANOU disclose a wireless mobile device, wherein the second metal layer 3 is composed of a metal “molybdenum” with a higher Young’s modulus than the first metal layer 5 “Aluminum or gold”.
RE Claim 31, DUBOIS wireless mobile device, wherein the first piezoelectric layer and the first and second metal layers form a cantilever that extends across at least a portion of the cavity.
However, STEPHANOU disclosed wireless compunction system, wherein one or more piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems devices 46 “microphone”, referring to FIGS. 14-17 and 19B, each device including a first piezoelectric layer 1406 spanning a cavity without a support structure positioned between a center region of the first piezoelectric layer and the cavity, a first metal layer 1404 and a second electrode layer 1408 and the piezoelectric layer 1406 form a cantilever that extends across at least a portion of the cavity, referring to FIG. 14B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant application to use the piezoelectric layers, first, second electrodes forming a cantilever structure in DUBOIS device as a well-known microphone structure with their distinct mechanical support, leading to variations in sensitivity, frequency response, and robustness.
RE Claim 32, DUBOIS discloses a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems device with circular cross-section, referring to FIG. 8.
DUBOIS discloses a piezoelectric microelectromechanical system, wherein the radius of the first piezoelectric layer is at least 400 micrometers.
However, DUBOIS discloses that the optimum thickness/dimensions of the first and second metal and piezoelectric layers will depend on their rigidity, i.e. their Young’s modulus values [page 4, example 1], hence result effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant application to use the claimed membrane radius, absent unexpected results, as being result effective variables, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
RE Claim 33, DUBOIS wireless mobile device, further comprising a second piezoelectric layer adjacent the first or second metal layer.
However, STEPHANOU disclosed wireless compunction system, wherein one or more piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems devices “microphone” in FIG. 15, wherein multiple piezoelectric layers are used, wherein a second piezoelectric layer 1502 adjacent the first or second metal layer 1408.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the instant application to use multiple piezoelectric layers of STEPHANOU disclosure in DUBOIS disclosed device control the extend the pressure sensitivity dynamic range and maximum output power.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the instant case, on page 9 applicant states “Dubois, in contrast, has a support structure 2 or 12 between the piezoelectric layer 4 and a cavity.” However, the entire rejection is based on the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, which is an exact description of the instant claimed limitations, referring to the entire rejection above, hence the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In the instant case, Kurachi et al. (US 8,994,251) disclose a piezoelectric device according to the present invention is provided with a first electrode film, a first nonmetal electroconductive intermediate film provided on the first electrode film, a piezoelectric film provided on the first nonmetal electroconductive intermediate film, a second nonmetal electroconductive intermediate film provided on the piezoelectric film, and a second electrode film provided on the second nonmetal electroconductive intermediate film. A linear expansion coefficient of the first nonmetal electroconductive intermediate film is larger than those of the first electrode film and the piezoelectric film, and a linear expansion coefficient of the second nonmetal electroconductive intermediate film is larger than those of the second electrode film and the piezoelectric film.
Furthermore, Lee et al. (US 10,756,701) disclose a bulk acoustic wave resonator includes: a substrate; a lower electrode disposed on the substrate; a piezoelectric layer at least partially disposed on the lower electrode; and an upper electrode disposed on the piezoelectric layer, wherein either one or both of the lower electrode and the upper electrode includes a layer of aluminum alloy including scandium.
Finally, Littrell (US 2020/0408799) discloses a sensor device that senses proper acceleration. The sensor device includes a substrate, a spacer layer supported over a first surface of the substrate, at least a first tapered cantilever beam element having a base and a tip, the base attached to the spacer layer, and which is supported over and spaced from the substrate by the spacer layer. The at least first tapered cantilever beam element tapers in width from the base portion to the tip portion. The at least first cantilever beam element further including at least a first layer comprised of a piezoelectric material, a pair of electrically conductive layers disposed on opposing surfaces of the first layer, and a mass supported at the tip portion of the at least first tapered cantilever beam element..
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 YASSER ABDELAZIEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Ajay Ojha can be reached at (571)272-8936. 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.
/YASSER A ABDELAZIEZ, PhD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898