Response After Non-Final
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 8/5/2026.
Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are rejected.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 14-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-27 are new.
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.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments filed August 5, 2026 have been fully considered
and are respectfully found persuasive in part and unpersuasive in part.
The applicant argues the following:
[1] Title and claim objections have been addressed and should be withdrawn.
[2] Prior art of record fails to teach “…the piezoelectric layer at least partially bounded by the boundary structure and arranged on the insulation layer and on the first and second structured electrodes” in Claim 1.
Regarding [1], the examiner respectfully agrees and the title and claim objections raised in the most recent office action are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding [2], the examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim language is broad and does not require direct contact. The claim language requires “bounded” and “arranged on” and these are broad terms. Here, the prior art of record discloses the piezoelectric layer (Fig. 6, 158) at least partially bounded (Fig. 6) by the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”) and arranged on (Fig. 6) the insulation layer (Fig. 6, 153; [0021]) and on (Fig. 6) the first and second structured electrodes (Fig. 6, 162/156).The claim language does not require that the piezoelectric be in direct contact with no intervening elements with the boundary structure. It only requires that it be “bounded” and the prior art of record discloses a piezoelectric that is bounded by a boundary structure. Furthermore, the prior art of record discloses a piezoelectric 158 that is “arranged on” two sections of 156. Therefore, the prior art of record reads on the claim language at issue.
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 23, it is unclear whether “substantially” refers to a fourth, a third, half, more than half, almost all, or some other quantity. The specification does not provide some standard for measuring “substantially.” One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the prior art and the status of the art, would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of “substantially” from the drawings alone. The specification uses the same term of degree as in the claim in paragraphs [0017] and [0022], but the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification because the specification does not provide a standard for measuring “substantially.” The examiner has understood the term to mean exactly parallel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 21, and 24-27 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Dausch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20130270967; hereinafter “Dausch”).
Regarding claim 1, Dausch discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) component, comprising: a semiconductor body (Fig. 6, 151/152 in combination; [0021]); an insulation layer (Fig. 6, 153; [0021]) arranged on (Fig. 6; [0021]) the semiconductor body (Fig. 6, 151/152 in combination; [0021]); a boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”) arranged on (Fig. 6) the insulation layer (Fig. 6, 153; [0021]), the semiconductor body (Fig. 6, 151; [0021]) comprising an opening below (Fig. 6, 184) the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”); first and second structured electrodes (Fig. 6, 162/156) arranged on (Fig. 6) the insulation layer (Fig. 6, 153; [0021]); and a piezoelectric layer (Fig. 6, 158) comprising a thermoplastic (Fig. 6, 158; [0024]), the piezoelectric layer (Fig. 6, 158) at least partially bounded (Fig. 6) by the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”) and arranged on (Fig. 6) the insulation layer (Fig. 6, 153; [0021]) and on (Fig. 6) the first and second structured electrodes (Fig. 6, 162/156).
Regarding claim 2, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 1, further comprising: a mass element (Fig. 6, 172), wherein the mass element (Fig. 6, 172) is arranged on (Fig. 6) the insulation layer (Fig. 6, 153; [0021]) inside (Fig. 6) the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”) or is arranged on (Fig. 6) the insulation layer (Fig. 6, 153; [0021]) inside (Fig. 6) the opening (Fig. 6, 184).
Regarding claim 3, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 2, wherein the mass element (Fig. 6, 172) and the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”) are parts (Fig. 6) of a same structured material layer (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 2, wherein the mass element (Fig. 6, 172) is formed in (Fig. 6) an interior (Fig. 6) of the opening (Fig. 6, 184) from a part (Fig. 6) of the semiconductor body (Fig. 6, 151/152 in combination; [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 2, wherein the mass element (Fig. 6, 172) is enclosed (Fig. 6) by the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”).
Regarding claim 6, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 1, wherein the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”) forms (Fig. 8)a closed curve (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic (Fig. 6, 158; [0024]) comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (Fig. 6, 158; [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 9, wherein the thermoplastic (Fig. 6, 158; [0024]) is a copolymer of polyvinylidene fluoride and trifluoroethylene (Fig. 6, 158; [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 1, wherein the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”) bounds (Fig. 6) the piezoelectric layer (Fig. 6, 158).
Regarding claim 12, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 1, wherein the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”) is a structured layer (Fig. 6; [0029]) of silicon (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material…SiO.sub.2”).
Regarding claim 13, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 1, wherein the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”) is a structured layer (Fig. 6; [0029]) of tetraethyl orthosilicate (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material…TEOS”).
Regarding claim 21, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 1, wherein the first and second structured electrodes (Fig. 6, 162/156) are part of a same (Fig. 6) structured metallization layer (Fig. 6, metallization layer comprising 156 electrodes on the left and on the right).
Regarding claim 24, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 1, wherein the first and second structured electrodes (Fig. 6, 162/156) extend over an inner sidewall (Fig. 6; [0029] – inner sidewall of “conformal insulator material”) of the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”), an outer sidewall (Fig. 6; [0029] – outer sidewall of “conformal insulator material”) of the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”) and a front surface (Fig. 6; [0029] – front surface of “conformal insulator material”) of the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”) that connects (Fig. 6; [0029]) the inner sidewall (Fig. 6; [0029] – inner sidewall of “conformal insulator material”) and the outer sidewall (Fig. 6; [0029] – outer sidewall of “conformal insulator material”).
Regarding claim 25, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 1, wherein part (Fig. 6, part of 162/156) of each of the first and second structured electrodes (Fig. 6, 162/156) is disposed (Fig. 6) outside (Fig. 6; [0029]) a perimeter (Fig. 6; [0029] – perimeter defined by “conformal insulator material”)defined by the boundary structure (Fig. 6; [0029] – “conformal insulator material”).
Regarding claim 26, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 1, wherein the first and second structured electrodes (Fig. 6, 162/156) are coplanar (Fig. 6, 156 electrodes on the left and on the right are coplanar).
Regarding claim 27, Dausch discloses the MEMS component of claim 1, wherein a sidewall of the piezoelectric layer contacts the first and second structured electrodes (Fig. 6, 162/156).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Dausch in view of Nagarad et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20130034954; hereinafter “Nagarad”).
Regarding claim 7, Dausch teaches the MEMS component of claim 1, wherein the insulation layer (Fig. 6, 153; [0021]) comprises an oxide layer (Fig. 6, 153; [0021]). Dausch does not teach a nitride layer.
Nagarad, however, does teach a nitride layer (Fig. 2, 216; [0055]).
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 Dausch to include the nitride layer of Nagarad because it would reduce defect formation thereby improving costs and efficiencies (Nagarad [0006]).
Regarding claim 8, Dausch as modified teaches the MEMS component of claim 7, wherein the oxide layer (Fig. 6, 153; [0021]) is arranged on (Fig. 6) the semiconductor body (Fig. 6, 151/152 in combination; [0021]). Dausch does not teach the nitride layer is arranged on the oxide layer.
Nagarad, however, does teach the nitride layer (Fig. 2, 216; [0055]) is arranged on the oxide layer (Fig. 2, 214; [0055]).
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 Dausch to include the nitride layer of Nagarad because it would reduce defect formation thereby improving costs and efficiencies (Nagarad [0006]).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Dausch in view of Yantchev et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210409001; hereinafter “Yantchev”).
Regarding claim 22, Dausch teaches the MEMS component of claim 1. Dausch does not teach wherein the first structured electrode comprises a first comb-like structure, wherein the second structured electrode comprises a second comb-like structure, and wherein tines of the first comb-like structure and tines of the second comb-like structure are arranged interleaved.
Yantchev, however, does teach wherein the first structured electrode (Fig. 1, 132/136 in combination) comprises a first comb-like structure (Fig. 1; [Abstract]), wherein the second structured electrode (Fig. 1, 134/136 in combination) comprises a second comb-like structure (Fig. 1; [Abstract]), and wherein tines (Fig. 1, 136 extending from 132) of the first comb-like structure (Fig. 1, 132/136 in combination) and tines (Fig. 1, 136 extending from 134) of the second comb-like structure (Fig. 1, 134/136 in combination) are arranged interleaved (Fig. 1; [Abstract]).
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 Dausch to include the comb-like electrodes of Yantchev because it would enable fabrication using optical lithography thereby improving fabrication options (Yantchev [0039]).
Regarding claim 23, Dausch teaches the MEMS component of claim 22. Dausch does not teach wherein the tines of the first and second structured electrodes extend substantially parallel to one another with a spacing between the tines that is greater than a width of the tines.
Yantchev, however, does teach wherein the tines (Fig. 1, 136 extending from 132 and 134) of the first and second structured electrodes (Fig. 1, 132/134/136) extend substantially parallel (Fig. 1; [0010]) to one another (Fig. 1; [0010]) with a spacing (Fig. 1; [0039]) between the tines (Fig. 1, 136) that is greater (Fig. 1; [0039]) than a width (Fig. 1; [0039]) of the tines (Fig. 1, 136).
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 Dausch to include the comb-like electrodes of Yantchev because it would enable fabrication using optical lithography thereby improving fabrication options (Yantchev [0039]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
17 September 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights