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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 4, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 28, 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umeda et al. (US 2020/0290865 A1) (or its corresponding International Application, WO 2019/155663 A1 with a publication date of August 15, 2019), hereinafter, referred to simply as Umeda et al.
As per claim 1, Umeda et al. discloses a resonance device (e.g., see, inter alia, Fig. 4) comprising: a first substrate (e.g., 10, 20) that includes a resonator (e.g., 10) having a lower electrode (e.g., E2) and a wiring line layer (e.g., metal layer that is formed of E2 - see, inter alia, paragraph [0061]) electrically connected to the lower electrode (e.g., E2); a second substrate (e.g., 30); a bonding part (e.g., layers (142A, 142B and H13) on the left-side of Fig. 4), which are eutectcially bonding the substrates (10, 20) and(30) to each other - see paragraphs [0078, 0081]) that is electrically conductive and bonds the first substrate (e.g., 10, 20) and the second substrate (e.g., 30) to each other; and an anti-diffusion layer (e.g., layer E3 formed of molybdenum (Mo) or tungsten (W) - see, inter alia, paragraph [0084]) electrically connecting the wiring line layer (e.g., metal layer that is formed of E2 - see, inter alia, paragraph [0061]) and the bonding part (e.g., layers (142A, 142B and H13) on the left-side of Fig. 4) to each other.
As per claim 2, wherein the bonding part (e.g., layers (142A, 142B and H13) on the left-side of Fig. 4) includes a eutectic layer (e.g., Al and/or Ge) having a eutectic alloy as a main component - see, inter alia, paragraph [0081].
As per claim 3, wherein the eutectic alloy consists of a first metal having aluminum as a main component and a second metal that is germanium - see, inter alia, paragraph [0081].
As per claim 4, wherein a material of the anti-diffusion layer (E3) is molybdenum or tungsten - see, inter alia, paragraph [0084].
As per claim 7, wherein the wiring line layer (e.g., metal layer that is formed of E2 - see, inter alia, paragraph [0061]) is spaced apart from an end portion of the bonding part (e.g., layers (142A, 142B and H13) on the left-side of Fig. 4) in the first substrate (10, 20) - see Fig. 4.
As per claim 8, wherein the anti-diffusion layer (e.g., being formed of molybdenum or tungsten - see paragraph [0084]) consists of a metal that has low diffusivity with respect to a metal of the bonding part (e.g., layers (142A, 142B and H13), which are formed of aluminum and/or germanium - see paragraph [0081]).
Additionally, as per claim 9, Umeda et al. discloses a resonance device (e.g., see, inter alia, Fig. 4) manufacturing method comprising: preparing a first substrate (e.g., 10, 20) including a first metal layer (e.g., 142A), a resonator (e.g., 10), a wiring line layer (e.g., metal layer that is formed of E2 - see, inter alia, paragraph [0061]) electrically connected to a lower electrode (e.g., E2) of the resonator (e.g., 10), and an anti-diffusion layer (e.g., layer E3 formed of molybdenum (Mo) or tungsten (W) - see, inter alia, paragraph [0084]) electrically connecting the wiring line layer (e.g., metal layer that is formed of E2) to the first metal layer (142A); preparing a second substrate (e.g., 30) including a second metal layer (e.g., 142B and/or the H12/H13); and bonding the first substrate (e.g., 10, 20) and the second substrate (e.g., 30) to each other with a bonding part that includes a eutectic layer (e.g., see paragraphs [0078, 0081]), the eutectic layer having a eutectic alloy of a first metal (e.g. Al) of the first metal layer (142A) and a second metal (e.g., Ge) of the second metal layer (e.g., 142B and/or the H12/H13) as a main component - see, inter alia, paragraph [0081]).
As per claim 10, wherein the preparing of the first substrate (e.g., 10, 20) includes forming the first metal layer (142A) and the wiring line layer (e.g., metal layer that is formed of E2) before or after forming the anti-diffusion layer (e.g., layer E3 formed of molybdenum (Mo) or tungsten (W) - see, inter alia, paragraph [0084]) - note that upper portion of E3 extend above the lower line portion thereof (Fig. 4).
As per claim 11, wherein the preparing of the first substrate (10, 20) includes forming a first layer of the anti-diffusion layer (e.g., lower portion of E2) and forming a second layer of the anti-diffusion layer (e.g., E3/E4) on top of the first layer (E2).
As per claim 12, wherein the preparing of the first substrate (10, 20) includes forming the wiring line layer (e.g., metal layer that is formed of E2 - see, inter alia, paragraph [0061]) at a position spaced apart from an end portion of the first metal layer (142A) in the first substrate (10, 20) - see Fig. 4.
As per claim 13, wherein the first metal is a metal having aluminum as a main component, and the second metal is germanium - see, inter alia, paragraph [0081].
As per claim 14, wherein a material of the anti-diffusion layer is molybdenum or tungsten - see, inter alia, paragraph [0084].
As per claim 17, wherein the anti-diffusion layer (e.g., being formed of molybdenum or tungsten - see paragraph [0084]) consists of a metal that has low diffusivity with respect to a metal of the bonding part (e.g., layers (142A, 142B and H13), which are formed of aluminum and/or germanium - see paragraph [0081]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al. in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0048284 A1).
See the description of Umeda et al., supra.
As per claims 5 and 15, Umeda et al. remains silent with regard to wherein a material of the lower electrode is degenerate silicon.
As per claims 6 and 16, Umeda et al. remains silent with regard to wherein a material of the wiring line layer is a metal having aluminum as a main component.
Such electrode/wiring line compositions within resonator MEMS devices are known in the art.
As just one example, Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0048284 A1) discloses an analogous MEMS (Micro Electro Mechanical Systems) resonator, in the same field of endeavor as Umeda et al., wherein, as per claims 5 and 15, a material of a corresponding lower electrode is degenerate silicon. See paragraph [0039] of Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0048284 A1). Additionally, as per claims 6 and 16, a corresponding wiring line layer (e.g., 129) is a metal having aluminum as a main component. See paragraph [0039] of Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0048284 A1)
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0048284 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a material of the lower electrode of Umeda et al. as being degenerate silicon and/or a corresponding wiring line layer (e.g., 129) as being a metal having aluminum as a main component (as per claims 5, 6, 15, and 16) as taught by Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0048284 A1) in order to advantageously provide a wiring line (made of aluminum) that is significantly lower in cost (versus molybdenum), has a lower density (light weight) and provides better electrical conductivity, and to further provide degenerate silicon as an electrode to reduce the number of manufacturing steps and/or provide for less material such that "the Si substrate 130 made of degenerate Si may be used as a lower electrode without formation of the lower electrode 129." See paragraph [0039] of Nakamura et al. (US 2018/0048284 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein anti-diffusion layers are provided in eutectic bonding to prevent the flow of materials, into adjacent materials, and/or the structures of a MEMs device, etc.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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 Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688