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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive; the rejection has been updated to address the newly amended limitations.
Regarding claim 1 the applicant argues that Brioschi and Kuzuyama fails to teach solder balls electrically connected to the TSV structures and the conductive structure. Brioschi teaches that the sensor chip 5 is connected to both the control chip and the substrate (Paragraph 183). Hence the modification of Brioschi in view of Kuzuyama is to form the connections disclosed in Paragraph 183 as the solder ball connections as taught by Kuzuyama and outlined in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 8, the applicant argues that the Delaus reference does not teach the claimed connecting structure. The applicant seems to base the argument on the implication that the bond wire 40 cannot be characterized as connecting structure in the limitation “the sensor has a connecting structure”. The examiner maintains that the bond wire 40 of Delaus can be characterized as the connecting structure and in this case the connecting structure 40 does directly contact the pad of the circuit device (Paragraph 41, top pad of chip 22).
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.
Claims 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delaus et al (U.S. Pub #2012/0189144).
With respect to claim 8, Delaus teaches a MEMS microphone package (Paragraph 24), comprising:
a substrate, (Fig. 4, 14) wherein a conductive structure is embedded in the substrate (Paragraph 28-29, i.e. electrical interconnects in the board or premolded material);
a circuit device (Fig. 4, 22) mounted on the substrate in the form of a flip-chip, wherein the circuit device has through silicon via structures (Fig. 4, 44) that are electrically connected to the conductive structure;
a sensor (Fig. 4, 20 and Paragraph 24) disposed on the substrate and electrically connected to the substrate and the circuit device; and
a cap (Fig. 4, 16) disposed on the substrate and covering the circuit device and the sensor;
wherein the substrate has a conductive pad on a top of the substrate (Paragraph 42, pad on base 14), the circuit device has a conductive pad on a top of the circuit device (Paragraph 41, top pad of chip 22), and the sensor has a connecting structure (Fig. 4, 40) that is in direct contact with the conductive pad of the circuit device.
With respect to claim 12, Delaus teaches that the sensor (Fig. 12, 154) is adjacent to the circuit device and electrically connected to the circuit device by an interconnection structure embedded in the substrate (Paragraph 28 and 49-50).
With respect to claim 13, Delaus teaches
an acoustic port penetrating the substrate or the cap (Fig. 4, 16 and Paragraph 26).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brioschi et al (U.S. Pub #2017/0006368), in view of Kuzuyama et al (U.S. Pub #2015/0264463)
With respect to claim 1, Brioschi teaches a MEMS microphone package, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 23, 2) having a conductive structure (Fig. 23, unlabeled pad/lines on top surface of substrate, Paragraph 6; and contacts 450);
a circuit device (Fig. 23, 406) having through silicon via structures (Fig. 23, 451 and Paragraph 182-183) electrically connected to the conductive structure;
a sensor (Fig. 23, 5) disposed on the substrate; and
a cap (Fig. 23, 3) covering the circuit device and the sensor and separated from the circuit device and the sensor.
Brioschi does not teach that the sensor has a connecting structure disposed on a bottom of the sensor, wherein the connecting structure is electrically connected to the substrate and the circuit device;
solder balls electrically connected to the through silicon via structures and the conductive structure.
Kuzuyama teaches a sensor (Fig. 12, 20) that has a connecting structure (Fig. 12, 27) disposed on a bottom of the sensor, wherein the connecting structure is electrically connected to the substrate (Fig. 12, 12b) and the circuit device (Fig. 9, 25);
and solder balls (Fig. 12, 27) electrically connected to the conductive structures of the circuit device (Fig. 12, unlabeled pad on 25) and the conductive structure of the substrate (Fig. 12, unlabeled wiring of the substrate, Paragraph 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the sensor of Brioschi to have a connecting structure on the bottom surface, and solder balls electrically connected to the through silicon via structures of Brioschi and the conductive structure,
as taught by Kuzuyama in order to achieve the predictable result of making electrical connections between the sensor and the circuit device, the solder ball flip chip connections being less prone to noise (Paragraph 73 and 89).
With respect to claim 2, Brioschi teaches that the circuit device (Fig. 23, 406) is embedded in the substrate (Fig. 23, 402).
With respect to claim 3, Brioschi teaches that a portion of the sensor (Fig. 23, 5) is stacked on the circuit device (Fig. 23, 406).
With respect to claim 5, Brioschi teaches that the sensor comprises a sensing structure for sensing sound waves (Paragraph 131, etc).
With respect to claim 6, Brioschi teaches that the substrate has an acoustic port (Fig. 23, 411) corresponding to the sensing structure.
With respect to claim 7, Brioschi teaches that the cap (Fig. 26, 711) comprises an acoustic port for receiving sound waves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form an acoustic port in the cap as taught by Fig. 26 of Brioschi in order to achieve the predictable result of transmitting sound to the MEMS device (Paragraph 118)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brioschi and Kuzuyama, in view of Gao et al (U.S. Pub #2017/0334714).
With respect to claim 4, Brioschi does not teach an underfill glue disposed between the circuit device and the substrate; and solder balls penetrating the underfill glue and electrically connected to the through silicon via structures and the conductive structure.
Gao teaches an underfill glue (Fig. 7, 502) disposed between a circuit device and the substrate; and solder balls (Fig. 7 602) penetrating the underfill glue and electrically connected to the circuit device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively to provide an underfill between the circuit device and substrate, and solder connect the TSVs and conductive structures of the substrate, as taught by Gao in order to provide stress isolation (Paragraph 36).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaus et al (U.S. Pub #2012/0189144), in view of Liao et al (U.S. Pub #2018/0063646).
With respect to claim 9, Delaus does not teach that the circuit device is embedded in the substrate.
Liao teaches a circuit device that is embedded in the substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the circuit device of Delaus as embedded in the substrate as taught by Brioschi in order to allow a larger cavity volume to enhance the sensitivity of the device (Paragraph 21).
With respect to claim 11, Delaus teaches that the circuit device has a conductive pad (Fig. 4, 46), and the sensor has a connecting structure (Fig. 4, 45) that is connected to the conductive pad.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaus and Liao, in view of Brioschi et al (U.S. Pub #2017/0006368).
With respect to claim 10, Delaus does not teach that a portion of the circuit device is disposed between the substrate and the sensor.
Brioschi teaches a circuit device having a portion (Fig. 23, 406) disposed between a substrate (Fig. 23, 2) and a sensor (Fig. 23, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to position the circuit device of Delaus to have a portion between the substrate and the sensor as taught by Brioschi in order to reduce the overall dimensions of the structure (Paragraph 133, 167, etc.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P SANDVIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)-272-1945. 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.
/BENJAMIN P SANDVIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812