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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 under the prior art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any and/or all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Previous rejections to the instant filed specification and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Instant dependent claim 4 recites the same/previously recited limitations in instant independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-4, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2006/0004290 to Smith et al. and U.S. 2013/0303920 to Corl. Smith et al. disclose a hybrid sensor (see Figs.3-5 and entire reference) including a piezoresistive element (46) (see para 0031) for sensing an applied force/pressure; and a piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer (PMUT) (48) (see para 0023) for sensing a presence of an object within a threshold distance of the hybrid sensor (see paras 0019 and 0024); and a semiconductor/silicon substrate (44, 50) (see para 0025) onto which both the piezoresistive element and the PMUT are disposed, wherein the piezoresistive element is implanted into a surface of the semiconductor/silicon substrate (see Figs. 3-8 and associated text in the Smith et al. specification), wherein the PMUT is layered over the surface of the semiconductor/silicon substrate (see Figs. 4-9 and associated text in the Smith et al. specification, in particular, paras 0028 and 0036); and circuits and/or structures to process respective electrical signal signals output from each of the piezoresistive element and the PMUT, wherein the circuits and/or structures are formed within the semiconductor/silicon substrate (see para 0025) to process/transmit the signals to an acquisition module (12) and subsequently a processing module (14) (as mostly recited in instant independent claim 1); wherein the PMUT is configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic pressure waves in the range of 100 kHz to 100 MHz to sense the presence of the object (see para 0019) (as recited in instant dependent claims 2 and 3); wherein the piezoresistive element is implanted into a surface of the semiconductor/silicon substrate and the PMUT is layered over the surface of the semiconductor/silicon substrate (see Fig. 4) (as recited in instant dependent claim 4); wherein respective electrical signals are inherently output from the piezoresistive element and response to the applied force/pressure (as recited in instant dependent claim 10); and wherein the respective electrical signals output from the PMUT are response to the presence of the object within the threshold distance of the hybrid sensor (as recited in instant dependent claim 11).
Although Smith et al. do not explicitly disclose/state that the circuits and/or structures formed within the semiconductor/silicon substate are “processing circuitry,” in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “processing circuitry,” the circuit and/or structures disclosed by Smith et al. process the signals, i.e. allow input signals (like a changing voltage or current) to be modified, routed and/or interpreted to convey and transform the input signals to a new signal output, and thus, in this broadest sense, Smith et al. disclose the recited limitation of “processing circuitry.” In addition, Corl discloses an ultrasound imaging device employing at least one PMUT MEMS (130) sensor that is implemented in an open-cavity molded/epoxy package/compound (119) (see Fig. 5) disposed on top of the PMUT MEMS and that exposes at least a portion of the PMUT from the molding package/compound; wherein electronic/processing circuitry/application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (132) is fabricated/formed in a semiconductor/silicon substrate/wafer which also supports the PMUT MEMS sensor (see para 0059). It would have been obvious to modify and/or supplement the hybrid sensor circuits and/or structures disclosed by Smith et al., by forming electronic/processing circuitry within the semiconductor/silicon substrate, forming a monolithic structure including ASIC, offering the simplicity and convenience of a monolithic structure and eliminating the need for flip-chip bonding of the ASIC and PMUT MEMS sensor components (see para 0059 of Corl), thus clearly meeting all the limitations regarding processing circuitry recited in instant independent claim 1.
Claim(s) 5-8, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2006/0004290 to Smith et al. and U.S. 2013/0303920 to Corl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0107854 to Tsai et al. Smith et al. and Corl disclose a hybrid sensor having all of the elements and configurations stated previously. Smith et al. further disclose the PMUT comprises a piezoelectric layer (see Figs. 2-6) disposed between a top electrode (30) and a bottom electrode (34), as partially recited in instant dependent claim 5, and wherein the PMUT circuitry must be inherently configured to apply voltage pulses to cause the PMUT to transmit ultrasonic pressure waves, since one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date knows that this must be employed to generate ultrasonic pressure waves, meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 15. Smith et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein a resonator cavity is disposed below the bottom electrode (as recited in the remainder of instant dependent claim 5); wherein the resonator cavity is a sealed cavity (as recited in instant dependent claim 6); wherein the piezoelectric layer is made of aluminum nitride (AlN) or scandium-doped aluminum nitride (AlScN) (as recited in instant dependent claim 7); wherein the bottom electrode comprises molybdenum (Mo) (as recited in instant dependent claim 8); wherein the processing circuitry includes at least one of a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS), a double-diffused metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (DMOS), or a bi-polar junction transistor (BJT) (as recited in instant dependent claim 14).
Tsai et al. disclose a PMUT on an integrated circuit (IC) (see entire reference) capable of sensing the presence of an object, wherein the PMUT comprises a piezoelectric layer (1620) disposed between a bottom electrode (1630) and a top electrode (1610), and sealed resonator cavity (2010) disposed below the bottom electrode (see Fig. 20)(meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 5 and 6); wherein the piezoelectric layer is made of aluminum nitride (AlN) (see para 0071) (as recited in instant dependent claim 7); wherein the bottom electrode comprises molybdenum (Mo) (see para 0072) (as recited in instant dependent claim 8); having processing circuitry including complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) (see paras 0007, 0008, 0066, 0075, 0079 and claim 1) (as recited in instant dependent claim 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify the hybrid sensor disclosed by Smith et al. and Corl, employing the teachings of Tsai et al., thus increasing the sensing resolution of the PMUT portion of the hybrid sensor and other deficiencies (see paras 0003-0005 of Tsai et al.).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2006/0004290 to Smith et al. and U.S. 2013/0303920 to Corl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0369866 to Sammoura et al. Smith et al. and Corl disclose a hybrid sensor having all of the elements and functionality stated previously. Smith et al. and Corl do not explicitly disclose the hybrid sensor processing circuitry is configured to process the respective electrical signals by comparing the respective electrical signals to respective thresholds to determine whether a touch event is classified as a true touch event or a false touch event (as recited in instant dependent claim 12); or wherein the touch event is classified as the true touch event when each of the respective electrical signals exceeds the respective threshold, and the touch event is classified as the false touch event when only one of the respective electrical signals exceeds the respective threshold (as recited in instant dependent claim 13).
Sammoura et al. disclose a PMUT sensor for detecting an object (see entire reference) that operates in non-ultrasonic force detection mode for one or more PMUT sensor elements and an ultrasonic imaging mode, for force detection and imaging, respectively. These modes allow to detect a touch and removal of touch based on a threshold force being measured in the non-ultrasonic mode as well as imaging of an object based on the measured threshold force. The processing circuitry is configured to process respective electrical signals from the PMUT sensor elements by comparing the respective electrical signals to a respective threshold to determine whether a touch event is classified as a true touch event or a false/inadvertent touch event and wherein the touch event is classified as the true touch event when each of the respective signals from the PMUT sensor elements exceeds the respective threshold, and the touch event is classified as the false/inadvertent touch event when only one of the respective electrical signals exceeds the respective threshold (see paras 0005, 0007, 0010, 0015, 0038, 0046, 0062). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the hybrid sensor disclosed by Smith et al. and Corl, employing the processing of electrical signals disclosed by Sammoura et al., thus providing the ability of the hybrid sensor to distinguish between true touch and false/inadvertent touch events, to perform the imaging of the object with certainty (see Summary of Sammoura et al.), thus meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 12 and 13.
Claim(s) 17, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2006/0004290 to Smith et al. and U.S. 20130303920 to Corl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0107854 to Tsai et al. Smith et al. and Corl disclose a hybrid sensor having all of the elements and functionality stated previously. Smith et al. and Corl do not explicitly disclose the hybrid sensor is implemented in an open-cavity molded package (as recited in instant dependent claim 17); wherein the open-cavity molded package includes a cavity disposed on top of the PMUT, the cavity being filled with a medium that transmits pressure waves to the PMUT (as recited in instant dependent claim 18); further including a molding compound that encapsulates the piezoresistive element and the PMUT, wherein the cavity is defined in the molding compound that exposes at least a portion of the PMUT from the molding compound, and an adhesive that fills the cavity so as to be disposed on the at least the portion of the PMUT (as recited in instant dependent claim 21).
However, Corl further discloses that the ultrasound imaging device employing at least one PMUT MEMS (130) sensor that is implemented in an open-cavity molded/epoxy package/compound (119) (see Fig. 5) disposed on top of the PMUT MEMS and that exposes at least a portion of the PMUT from the molding package/compound, as well as encapsulating the PMPUT MEMS that exposes at least a portion of the PMUT from the molding compound/package. It would have been further obvious to modify the hybrid sensor disclosed by Smith et al. and Corl, by implementing the hybrid sensor in an open-cavity molded package via a molding compound, wherein the molding compound encapsulates both the PMUT and the piezoresistive element, thus securing both the PMUT and piezoresistive element in place within a housing, as well as serving as an acoustic backing material to absorb acoustic reverberations within the housing (see para 0061 of Corl), thus meeting all of the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 17, and some of the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 18 and 21.
In addition, Smith et al. further disclose that an acoustic matching layer/material layer (38) and an acoustic lens layer (40) is provided/disposed over the transducer array (36) including the PMUT (see Fig. 2 and para 0024) to protect the surface of the transducer array including the PMUT and to focus the emitted ultrasonic energy/waves to a preselected/predetermined distance/depth of an object, thus clearly disclosing a medium on top of the PMUT that transmits and focuses ultrasonic pressure waves to/from the PMUT, acting as a functional equivalent to the recited adhesive and/or adhesive layer disposed on top of the PMUT, as recited in instant dependent claims 18 and 21.
As to the remaining limitations of instant dependent claims 18 and 21, Tsai et al. disclose a PMUT on an integrated circuit (IC) (see entire reference) capable of sensing the presence of an object and sharing many of the limitations of the claimed invention, wherein a cavity (1640) (see Fig. 18) is formed on top of the PMUT (1610, 1620, 1630), wherein the cavity is filled with a medium/adhesive (1810), the medium/adhesive being a rubber, gel, etc. wherein the medium transmits ultrasonic pressure waves to/from the PMUT (see para 0114). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to employ a medium/adhesive within/filling the cavity disclosed by Smith et al. and Corl, disposed on at least a portion of the PMUT, as taught by Tsai et al., thus providing a material/medium/adhesive that is associated with a first acoustic velocity that is different from a second acoustic velocity corresponding to molding compound forming the cavity, so that a resonant frequency of the PMUT can be modified in a predetermined manner by selecting the material/adhesive/medium of a predetermined acoustic velocity with respect to the acoustic velocity of the molding compound forming the cavity, as well as prevent debris, contaminants etc. from entering the cavity and subsequently reducing errors in measurements of the resonant frequency of the PMUT (see para 0114), thus meeting all remaining limitations of instant dependent claims 18 and 21.
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner, including US 11,946,817 to Foughi and US 11,808,644 to Tsai which disclose various aspects of the claimed invention, specifically in regards to processing circuitry and other structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights