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 .
This Office action is in response to Amendments filed 1/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langlois et al. (US 10,510,945 B1) in view of Laming et al. (US 2007/0284682 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Langlois discloses a micromechanical systems microphone (Fig. 11), comprising:
a substrate (9010) including at least one wall (top wall of 9010) defining a cavity (cavity above 9010);
a membrane (combination of 9041 and 9051) supported by the at least one wall; and
at least one anchor (combination of 9011 and 9065) in contact with the membrane and the at least one wall, such that the membrane is only fixed to the at least one wall by the at least one anchor.
Langlois does not disclose a plurality of dimples defined on a surface of the membrane facing the substrate.
Laming, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a plurality of dimples (“dimples”, ¶ 0049) defined on a surface of a membrane facing the substrate (“These dimples in the outer area of the membrane 11 reduce the contact area of the membrane with the underlying substrate”, ¶ 0049). There was a benefit to forming a plurality of dimples ono a surface of the membrane facing the substrate in that it prevents the membrane from sticking (¶ 0049). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form a plurality of dimples defined on a surface of the membrane of Langlois facing the substrate for this benefit.
Regarding claim 7, Langlois further discloses an additional anchor (the unlabeled component beneath 9015 in Fig. 11 may be considered an anchor as it anchors 9015 to the top wall of the substrate).
Regarding claim 10, Langlois further discloses wherein the membrane has been released such that it has substantially no intrinsic stress (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 13, Langlois further discloses wherein the microphone is a capacitive MEMS microphone (Col. 15, Line 13).
Regarding claim 21, Langlois further discloses the anchor being formed from a resist layer (Langlois discloses using a photoresist layer to form the anchor, which is considered as satisfying the limitation of “being formed from a resist layer”; Col. 13, Lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 9, Langlois further discloses wherein the resist layer comprises a photoresist layer (Col. 13, Lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 22, Laming discloses wherein the plurality of dimples are configured to prevent sticking between the membrane and the substrate during fabrication of the microphone (¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 23, Laming discloses that the dimples are in an outer portion of the membrane (“outer area”, ¶ 0049) but does not disclose the distribution of the dimples about the membrane. However, there was a benefit to forming the dimples such that they form a ring of dimples about an outer portion of the surface of the membrane facing the substrate in that dimples would be equally spaced. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the dimples in the microphone of the combination such that they form a ring of dimples about an outer portion of the surface of the membrane facing the substrate for this benefit.
Regarding claim 24, Laming further discloses that the plurality of dimples are integral with the membrane (Laming discloses that the dimples are created by forming dimple cavities in the sacrificial layer onto which the membrane is molded and, therefore, the dimples are a part of the membrane, ¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 25, Laming discloses that multiple dimples are formed (¶ 0049). As each dimple can be considered its own “section”, the plurality of dimples are disposed in separate sections of dimples.
Regarding claim 26, Laming further discloses that the plurality of dimples contact the substrate (¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 27, in the device of the combination a subset of the plurality of dimples are disposed over the cavity (it is noted that Applicant has not claimed directly over and, as such, each of the plurality of dimples is “over” the cavity as they are at a higher elevation).
Regarding claim 28, Laming discloses that the dimples contact the substrate (¶ 0049) and in the device of the combination the dimples are disposed over the cavity (it is noted that Applicant has not claimed directly over and, as such, each of the plurality of dimples is “over” the cavity as they are at a higher elevation). As such, a first subset (any one) of the plurality of dimples contact the substrate and a second subset (another one) of the plurality of dimples are disposed over the cavity.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Laming et al. (US 2007/0284682 A1).
Regarding claim 18, AAPA discloses a piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems microphone (Fig. 1), comprising:
a substrate (101) including at least one wall (inner wall) defining a cavity (cavity within 101);
a membrane (121) supported by the at least one wall; and
at least one anchor (105) in contact with the membrane and the at least one wall, such that the membrane is only fixed to the at least one wall by the at least one anchor.
AAPA does not disclose a plurality of dimples defined on a surface of the membrane facing the substrate.
Laming, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a plurality of dimples (“dimples”, ¶ 0049) defined on a surface of a membrane facing the substrate (“These dimples in the outer area of the membrane 11 reduce the contact area of the membrane with the underlying substrate”, ¶ 0049). There was a benefit to forming a plurality of dimples ono a surface of the membrane facing the substrate in that it prevents the membrane from sticking (¶ 0049). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form a plurality of dimples defined on a surface of the membrane of Langlois facing the substrate for this benefit.
Regarding claim 20, AAPA discloses that the microphone comprises an additional anchor (125, which is considered an anchor as it anchors 127 to 121).
Regarding claim 29, as the dimples are formed of the same material as the membrane (¶ 0049 of Laming) and the membrane in the device of the combination is formed of a piezoelectric material (¶¶ 0096-0097 of the PG-PUB of the present Application), the plurality of dimples are formed of a piezoelectric material.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Langlois et al. (US 10,510,945 B1) and Laming et al. (US 2007/0284682 A1).
Regarding claim 6, AAPA discloses a microelectromechanical systems microphone (Fig. 1), comprising:
a substrate (101) including at least one wall (inner wall) defining a cavity (cavity within 101);
a membrane (121) supported by the at least one wall; and
at least one anchor (105) in contact with the membrane and the at least one wall, such that the membrane is only fixed to the at least one wall by the at least one anchor.
AAPA does not disclose that the anchor is formed from a resist layer.
Langlois, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming anchors from resist layers (Langlois discloses using a photoresist layer to form the anchor, which is considered as satisfying the limitation of “being formed from a resist layer”; Col. 13, Lines 41-48). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known usage of a resist layer to form an anchor as taught by Langlois for oxidation of silicon process of AAPA and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
AAPA does not disclose a plurality of dimples defined on a surface of the membrane facing the substrate.
Laming, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a plurality of dimples (“dimples”, ¶ 0049) defined on a surface of a membrane facing the substrate (“These dimples in the outer area of the membrane 11 reduce the contact area of the membrane with the underlying substrate”, ¶ 0049). There was a benefit to forming a plurality of dimples ono a surface of the membrane facing the substrate in that it prevents the membrane from sticking (¶ 0049). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form a plurality of dimples defined on a surface of the membrane of Langlois facing the substrate for this benefit.
Regarding claim 8, AAPA does not explicitly disclose that the anchor forms a ring around the edge of the membrane. However, forming the anchor such that its shape is a ring amount to a basic change in shape and, as such, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Regarding claim 11, AAPA discloses that the microphone is a piezoelectric MEMS microphone (¶ 0096 of the PG-PUB of the present Application).
Regarding claim 12, AAPA further discloses that it was known in the art to use a plurality of electrodes and piezoelectric film layers in the membrane (¶¶ 0096-0097 of the PG-PUB of the present Application). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Application was filed to use three electrodes and two piezoelectric film layers.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Laming et al. (US 2007/0284682 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Langlois (US 10,510,945 B1).
Regarding claim 19, AAPA differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of an anchor formed by metal with an anchor formed by an oxide. However, using metal and the corresponding function of using it for an anchor was known in the art (Col. 13, Lines 33-35 of Langlois). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known element of an anchor formed from metal as taught by Langlois for oxide of AAPA and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument that Langlois does not disclose a “’piezoelectric microelectromechanical systems microphone’ as recited in independent claim 6” is not persuasive as piezoelectric is not actually recited in independent claim 6. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments concerning neither Langlois nor AAPA disclosing “dimples” as recited in the amended claims is persuasive. However, this feature is taught by Laming, as discussed above, which is cited to address these newly added limitations.
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 CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/C.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights