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 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)(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) 1,6,9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being unpatentable over Tseng et al., (Tseng) US 2019/0062153.
Regarding claim 1, Tseng shows in FIG. 1A-13, and discloses a microelectromechanical system(MEMS) device, comprising: a cap layer (126)[0018]; a substrate layer (106,102)[0038]; a device layer (124)[0044] disposed between the cap layer (126) and the substrate layer 9106,102); and an anchor structure (130) [0050] disposed in the device layer (124), wherein the anchor structure comprises: a first anchor part )130 first part) formed in said device layer (124); a second anchor part (130 second part) formed in said device layer (124); and a flexible element (122)[0050] formed in said device layer (124); wherein said first anchor part and said second anchor part (130) are respectively connected to both sides of said flexible element (122); said first anchor part (130 firs part) is fixed to said cap layer (126) via a first bonding part [0051,0052]; and said second anchor part (130 second part) is fixed to said substrate layer via a second bonding part (103)[0051].
Regarding claim 6, Tseng shows in FIG. 1A-13, a MEMS device, wherein said first anchor part (130), said second anchor part (130), and said flexible element (122) are fabricated using the same material; and the cross-sectional area of said flexible element (122) is smaller than the cross- sectional area of said first anchor part and said second anchor part (130 first and second part placed on both side of 122).
Regarding claim 9, Tseng shows in FIG. 1A-13, a MEMS device, wherein said second anchor part (130) is configurable for hanging the internal structures of said microelectromechanical system device (100).
Regarding claim 10, Tseng shows in FIG. 1A-13, a MEMS device, wherein said first anchor part (130 first part) is configurable for hanging the internal structures of said microelectromechanical system device (100).
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng as applied to claims 1,6,9,10, and further in view of Cheng et al., (Cheng) US 2012/0061776.
Regarding claim 3, Tseng shows in FIG. 1A-13, a MEMS device, having a cap layer (126)[0018].
Tseng differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein said cap layer includes an auxiliary rib part; said auxiliary rib part is aligned to said second anchor part; and said auxiliary rib part and said second anchor part are spaced by a gap.
Cheng discloses and shows in FIG. 4L, a device wherein said cap layer (350) includes an auxiliary rib part (protruding part of 350); said auxiliary rib part (350) is aligned to said second anchor part; and said auxiliary rib part 9350) and said second anchor part are spaced by a gap
Cheng is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Tseng. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Cheng in the device Tseng because it will provide a device that could create an hermetic seal without area loss and without the addition of any process layers to the semiconductor device [0047].
Claim(s) 4,5,7,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng as applied to claims 1,6,9,10, and further in view of Chu et al., (Chu) US 2015/0284240.
Regarding claims 4,5, Tseng shows in FIG. 1A-13, and discloses a MEMS device further comprising a first anchor part (130), a second anchor part (130), and a flexible element (122).
Tseng differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device having two first anchor parts being connected to the periphery of said second anchor part via said two flexible elements; said two second anchor parts being connected to the periphery of said first anchor part via said two flexible elements.
Chu discloses [0110] a device having two first anchor parts (portion 402a) being connected to the periphery of said second anchor part (402a) via said two flexible elements (402b multiple on sides 450a,b); said two second anchor parts (402a) being connected to the periphery of said first anchor part via said two flexible elements (402b multiple on sides 450a,b).
Chu is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Tseng. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Chu in the device Tseng because it will improve the performance of the device [0060].
Regarding claims 7,8, Tseng shows in FIG. 1A-13 and discloses a MEMS device having a first bonding part (130 fist part) and a second bond part (130 second part).
Tseng differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein the melting point of said first bonding part is higher than the melting point of said second bonding part; wherein the melting point of said first bonding part is lower than the melting point of said second bonding part.
Chu discloses [0026] a device wherein the melting point of said first bonding part is higher than the melting point of said second bonding part; wherein the melting point of said first bonding part is lower than the melting point of said second bonding part [0026].
Chu is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Tseng. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Chu in the device Tseng because it will improve the performance of the device [0060].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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.
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 MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights