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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to applicant's amendment which was filed on 5/27/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 have been amended. Claims 3, 6-7, and 11-20 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8-10 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20180066577).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches A microphone chip, comprising: a diaphragm, wherein the diaphragm is provided with a plurality of folds (Lee figure 8h, ¶0006 and diaphragm 110 and recessed portions 111C1’-111C3’); and a back plate including at least one protrusion formed on a surface opposite to the diaphragm (Lee figure 8h, back plate layer 120 with protrusions 1260c), wherein in a direction perpendicular to the back plate, and an outer contour of a projection of each of the at least one protrusion on the diaphragm (Lee figure 8h, protrusions 1260c projects onto the non-depressed surfaces of diaphragm 110) and an outer contour of a corresponding fold of the plurality of folds do not intersect (Lee figure 8h, recessed portions 111C1’-111C3’. The vertical axis of each protrusions 1260c do not intercept the vertical axis of each recessed portion); each of the plurality of the folds is depressed from a surface of the diaphragm facing the back plate towards a direction away from the back plate (Lee figure 8H, recessed portions 111C1’-111C3’); each of the each of the plurality of the folds has a circular shape (Lee figure 7, recessed portions 111C1’-111C3’); the plurality of the folds are spaced from each other, and a center of each of the plurality of the folds coincides with a center of the diaphragm (Lee figure 7, recessed portions 111C1’-111C3’).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches wherein in the direction perpendicular to the back plate, the projection of the each of the at least one protrusion on the diaphragm is located between a corresponding pair of adjacent folds of the plurality of folds (Lee figure 8H).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches wherein each of the at least one protrusion has a width D1 in a range of 0.1 μm to 5 μm (Lee ¶0033, “The width of the annular protrusion (126C) is larger than the sound hole, and is, for example, in the range of 0.5 to 5.0 um”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches wherein the microphone chip further comprises a substrate (Lee figure 8H, substrate 100), and the back plate (Lee figure 8h, back plate layer 120) and the diaphragm are both fixedly connected with the substrate (Lee figure 8h, membrane 110).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20180066577) in view of Lee2 (CN 114390418).
Regarding claim 5, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of the folds has a width D2 in a range of 1 μm to 20 μm.
Lee2 teaches wherein each of the plurality of the folds has a width D2 in a range of 1 μm to 20 μm (Lee2 figure 5a and 6H, cavity space H14 and Page 10 ¶6 “The outer diameter D11 of each protrusion 140 may be maintained at 0.6 μm to 2.0 μm, the inner diameter D12 may be maintained at 0.3 μm to 1.5 μm, and the line width W11, i.e., the thickness, of each protrusion 140 is thin, maintained at 0.2 μm at a minimum”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the known technique of Lee2 to improve the known microphone chip of Lee to achieve the predictable result of achieving a desired frequency response, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20180066577) in view of Zou (US 20170055081).
Regarding claim 8, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one protrusion is configured as a plurality of protrusions, and a distance L between adjacent protrusions is in a range of 10 μm to 100 μm.
Zou teaches wherein the at least one protrusion is configured as a plurality of protrusions, and a distance L between adjacent protrusions is in a range of 10 μm to 100 μm (Zou ¶0040, “the distance between the centers of any two adjacent corrugations are 20 μm”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the known technique of Zou to improve the known microphone chip of Lee to achieve the predictable result of achieving a desired frequency response, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20180066577) in view of Lee3 (US 2020/0112800).
Regarding claim 9, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein each of the at least one protrusion has a height H in a range of 0.1 μm to 5 μm.
Lee3 teaches wherein each of the at least one protrusion has a height H in a range of 0.1 μm to 5 μm (Lee3 ¶0032, “the corrugations 148 can have a height H.sub.c of about 1 micron to about 5 microns”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Lee3 to improve the known microphone chip of Lee to achieve the predictable result of increasing the sensitivity of the diaphragm (Lee3 ¶0032).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground of rejections in the current office action.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693