DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed 8/25/2025, claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each claim should begin with "The MEMS sound transducer..." in place of "MEMS sound transducer...". Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al, US Publication No. 2012/0087522 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee et al teaches a MEMS sound transducer, comprising: an actuator (Title/Abstract, Paragraph 8, “and a plurality of piezoelectric actuators each configured to include a piezoelectric member and first and second electrodes which induce an electric field into the piezoelectric member, wherein the piezoelectric actuators include a central actuator, which is formed on a central portion of the diaphragm and a plurality of edge actuators, which are a predetermined distance apart from the central actuator and are formed on a plurality of edge portions of the diaphragm.”);
a structure surrounding the actuator, wherein the actuator is separated from the surrounding structure by one or several slits (FIG. 2, Actuators 20, specifically the portions labelled edge regions A2, Paragraph 23, “The piezoelectric actuating portions 120a may include a central portion disposed in a region A1, which corresponds to the center of the through hole 112, and a plurality of edge portions disposed in edge regions A2, which are a predetermined distance apart from the central region A1.” );
at least one first aperture arranged on the actuator along at least one of the one or several slits and extending out of the substrate plane and/or into the substrate plane (FIG. 2, Diaphragm 10, Piezoelectric actuators 20, Piezoelectric Actuating Portions 120a, non-actuating portions 162, Through Hole 112, Paragraph 22, “More specifically, the diaphragm 10 may be divided into a plurality of piezoelectric actuating portions 120a, which are formed of first insulating portions and on which the piezoelectric actuators 20 are formed;”, Paragraph 38, “Portions of the first conductive layer corresponding to the piezoelectric non-actuating portions 162 may be etched away, thereby completing the formation of the lower electrodes 130a.”, FIG. 2 Displays a diaphragm/aperture placed upon separate actuators, which are separated by gaps (designated with B), Paragraph 38 further clarifies that the non-actuating portions may be etched away creating a gap in which the central portion with a diaphragm (In section A1) is separate from the surrounding structure, these etched away portions corresponding to slits.);
and at least one second aperture arranged on the surrounding structure along the slit of the one or several slits and extending out of a substrate plane and/or into the substrate plane (Paragraph 23, “The piezoelectric actuating portions 120a may include a central portion disposed in a region A1, which corresponds to the center of the through hole 112, and a plurality of edge portions disposed in edge regions A2, which are a predetermined distance apart from the central region A1. The piezoelectric actuators 20 may be formed on the piezoelectric actuating portions 120a, but not on the piezoelectric non-actuating portions 162. The area of the central portion in the region A1 may be smaller than the through hole 112. Since the central portion in the region A1 is not placed in direct contact with the substrate 110a, the central portion in the region A1 can move freely without being restrained by the substrate 110a.”, as explained above, the diaphragm is split between the sections by the gaps, the surrounding structure corresponding to the section labeled as edge regions A2.).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first and/or the second aperture extends out of a lateral main extension direction of the actuator and the surrounding structure (Paragraph 28, “More specifically, each of the piezoelectric actuators 20 may include a piezoelectric member 140a, which is deformed when an electric field is applied thereto. The deformation of the piezoelectric member 140a may cause the diaphragm 10 to be displaced in the direction of its thickness.”);
and/or wherein the first and/or the second aperture extends essentially perpendicularly out of a lateral main extension direction of the actuator and the surrounding structure (Paragraph 28, “More specifically, each of the piezoelectric actuators 20 may include a piezoelectric member 140a, which is deformed when an electric field is applied thereto. The deformation of the piezoelectric member 140a may cause the diaphragm 10 to be displaced in the direction of its thickness.”, the diaphragm/aperture is shown to extend outwards from the actuator/surrounding structure, while it is a thin portion it would still necessarily be extending away from the actuation/surrounding structure.).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein essentially perpendicularly comprises an angle between 75*-105* and in particular between 85*-95* (Fig. 2, diaphragm 10, is shown to be perpendicularly extended from the surrounding structure, forming a right angle.).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the actuator is configured to perform a relative movement between the actuator and the surrounding structure (Paragraph 23, “Since the central portion in the region A1 is not placed in direct contact with the substrate 110a, the central portion in the region A1 can move freely without being restrained by the substrate 110a. On the other hand, the edge portions in the regions A2 may be formed as cantilever-like structures having only outer circumferential sides fixed onto the substrate 110a, and thus, inner circumferential sides of the edge portions in the regions A2 may be free to move or vibrate.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first aperture and the second aperture are arranged opposing each other or overlapping each other (FIG. 2, arranged opposing each other on each side of the gap.).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the actuator and the surrounding structure oppose each other laterally and/or separated by the slit (FIG. 2, arranged on either side of the gap.).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the thickness of the slit and/or the distance between the first and the second apertures along a lateral and/or horizontal extension direction remains essentially constant (Paragraph 23, “The piezoelectric actuating portions 120a may include a central portion disposed in a region A1, which corresponds to the center of the through hole 112, and a plurality of edge portions disposed in edge regions A2, which are a predetermined distance apart from the central region A1.”);
and/or wherein the first and the second apertures extend essentially in parallel and/or comprise parallel areas opposing each other (FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the actuator is configured as a bending actuator (Paragraph 22, “The diaphragm 10 may be a combination of a plurality of insulating portions and may cover at least the through hole 112. More specifically, the diaphragm 10 may be divided into a plurality of piezoelectric actuating portions 120a, which are formed of first insulating portions and on which the piezoelectric actuators 20 are formed; and a plurality of piezoelectric non-actuating portions 162, which are formed of second insulating portions and correspond to portions of the diaphragm 10 between the piezoelectric actuators 20. The diaphragm 10 may be a thin-film structure that generates sonic pressure by being displaced in the direction of its thickness due to the deformation of a piezoelectric member 140a.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the actuator is configured to emit a sound signal on the basis of an electric signal (Paragraph 7, “The following description relates to a piezoelectric microspeaker which can maintain high power output even after a long use and a method of fabricating the piezoelectric microspeaker.” While not explicitly stated, the described invention is a piezoelectric microspeaker, with described high power output, and would necessarily be capable of emitting a sound signal on the basis of an electrical signal.).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches, wherein the first aperture and the second aperture extend partially opposite to each other (As described above, each portion of the diaphragm/aperture extend opposing each other on opposing sides of the gap as displayed in FIG. 2.).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US Publication No. 2012/0087522 A1, in view of Zoellin et al, US Publication No. 2014/0169594.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of Claim 5, but does not further teach, wherein the first and second aperture extend at least partially in a direction that is essentially parallel to the relative movement.
However, Zoellin et al in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the first and the second aperture extend at least partially in a direction that is essentially parallel to the relative movement (Paragraph 8, "In the case of the MEMS microphone component described here, the sound pressure acting on the component perpendicularly to the planes of the layers produces a diaphragm movement oriented in parallel to the planes of the layers of the component.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of apertures extending in an essentially parallel direction to the relative movement, as taught by Zoellin et al, with the system as taught by Lee et al. The motivation being to further improve the functionality of the apertures, allowing them to be extendable in a more proper manner.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US Publication No. 2012/0087522 A1, in view of Uchida et al, US Publication No. 2015/0156576.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but does not further teach, wherein, in a deflected state, the distance between the first and the second aperture along a lateral and/or horizontal extension direction corresponds to up to 2.0 times or up to 1.5 times or up to 1.1 times a distance in a non-deflected state.
However, Uchida et al in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein, in a deflected state, the distance between the first and the second aperture along a lateral and/or horizontal extension direction corresponds to up to 2.0 times or up to 1.5 times or up to 1.1 times a distance in a non-deflected state (Paragraph 99, "In each of the back plates 18 of models I to IV, a pressure of 200 Pa was applied to the back plate 18a on a high-sensitive side, displacements generated in the back plate 18a and the back plate 18b at this time were calculated by simulation, and it was evaluated whether the displacement on the back plate 18a side was transmitted to the back plate 18b side. In applied model I, the fixed electrode plates 19a and 19b each having a width of about 700 .mu.m and the back plate 18 having a large number of acoustic holes 24 each having a diameter of 17 .mu.m were used, and no slit 34 was present. In model II, the fixed electrode plates 19a and 19b each having a width of about 700 .mu.m and the back plate 18 having a large number of acoustic holes 24 each having a diameter of 17 .mu.m were used, and the slit 34 having a length of 320 .mu.m was present. In model III, the fixed electrode plates 19a and 19b each having a width of about 700 .mu.m and the back plate 18 having a large number of acoustic holes 24 each having a diameter of 17 .mu.m were used, and the slit 34 having a length of 540 .mu.m was present. In model IV, the fixed electrode plates 19a and 19b each having a width of about 700 .mu.m and the back plate 18 having a large number of acoustic holes 24 each having a diameter of 17 .mu.m were used, and the slit 34 having a length of 720 .mu.m was present.", displays a distance change between each diaphragm when exposed to pressure.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of a deflected state distance between the first and second apertures corresponding to up to 2 or up to 1.5 or 1.1 times a distance in a non-deflected state, with the system as taught by Lee et al. The motivation being to allow for a proper deflection distance corresponding to the needs of the system as claimed.
Claims 3, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US Publication No. 2012/0087522 A1, in view of Rusconi Et al, AU 2015/261458.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not further teach, wherein the first and/or second aperture extends into a lateral main extension direction of the actuator and the surrounding structure; or wherein the first and/or the second aperture extends essentially perpendicularly into a lateral main extension direction of the actuator and the surrounding structure.
However, Rusconi et al, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein, the first and/or second aperture extends into a lateral main extension direction of the actuator and the surrounding structure; or wherein the first and/or the second aperture extends essentially perpendicularly into a lateral main extension direction of the actuator and the surrounding structure (See Page 5, “The membrane 30 is connected to the membrane carrier 40 in its edge area 37, and is able to vibrate along the z-axis 50 with respect to the membrane carrier 40. At this, the z-axis 50 runs essentially perpendicular to the membrane 30. The MEMS sound transducer 2 also features a stopper mechanism 60, which is formed to limit the vibrations of the membrane 30 in at least one direction 51. For this purpose, the stopper mechanism 60 features a reinforcing element 31, which is arranged on one side of the membrane 30, here on its underside. On the other hand, the stopper mechanism 60 features an end stop 61 opposite to the reinforcing element 31, which is spaced at a distance from the membrane 30 in a neutral position of the membrane 30, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, and against which the reinforcing element 31 abuts at a maximum deflection of the membrane 30 in the direction 51, as shown in Figure 3.” Displays an extension direction towards the inside of the structure.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of an aperture extending into a main extension direction of the actuator/surrounding structure, or wherein the first or second aperture extends essentially perpendicularly into a lateral main extension direction of the actuator/surrounding structure, as taught by Rusconi et al. With the system as taught by Lee et al. The motivation being that allowing the aperture to extend in either direction is known in the art, and is further dependent upon preferred embodiments and/or use cases, and as such the combination would be possible depending upon the situation that is required of the diaphragm/aperture.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 11, but does not further teach wherein at least one free end of the bending actuator and/or one or several sides of the bending actuator between a clamped end and a free end comprise the first aperture.
However, Rusconi et al in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein, at least one free end of the bending actuator and/or one or several sides of the bending actuator between a clamped end and a free end comprise the first aperture (See Pages 2 and 3 “In an advantageous additional form of the invention, the MEMS sound transducer comprises a MEMS actuator, which in particular has a carrier substrate, and which works together with the membrane, in order to convert electrical signals into acoustically perceptible sound waves.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the bending actuator comprising the first aperture, as taught by Rusconi et al, with the system as taught Lee et al. The motivation being to reduce complexity by reducing the components needed to assemble the structure.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee et al teaches all the limitations of claim 11, but does not further teach the actuator being configured as a stroke actuator.
However, Rusconi et al in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein, the actuator is configured as a stroke actuator (FIG. 3, FIG. 4, Actuator structure 73 is shown in differing positions in each, and performs in a function corresponding to a stroke actuator.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the actuator comprising a stroke actuator, as taught by Rusconi et al, with the system as taught Lee et al. The motivation being to allow for a more direct extension of the actuator allowing for a simpler construction.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee et al in view of Rusconi et al teach all the limitations of claim 13, and Rusconi et al further teaches, wherein the at least one side of the stroke actuator and at least one or several sides of the stroke actuator comprise the first aperture (See Page 5, "On the other hand, the first end stop 61 is arranged on a carrier substrate 71 of a MEMS actuator 70 or is formed by one side of the carrier substrate 71. This MEMS actuator 70 is arranged below the membrane 30 and/or is essentially parallel to it. It works together with the membrane 30 to convert electrical signals into acoustically perceptible sound waves or vice versa. For this purpose, the MEMS actuator 70 comprises an actuator structure 73. This is preferably designed to be piezoelectric.").
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN M NEECE whose telephone number is (703)756-1941. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 7pm.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached on (571)-270-7136. 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.
/DYLAN MAGUIRE NEECE/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692