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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/20/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-11, 13, 15-22 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose a piezoelectric microelectromechanical system microphone assembly comprising: a carrier substrate including one of a through-hole or a recess; and a package including a microelectromechanical system die having a piezoelectric microelectromechanical system microphone mounted on a microphone substrate and a lid, the microelectromechanical system die and lid each being mounted directly on a same surface of the microphone substrate and on a same plane within a recess defined in the microphone substrate, at least a portion of the package disposed within the one of the through-hole or recess; but do not expressly disclose wherein the recess defined in the microphone substrate has a same width as the one of the through-hole or the recess included in the carrier substrate.
None of the prior art of record disclose in their entirety or in combination the claimed limitation “wherein the recess defined in the microphone substrate has a same width as the one of the through-hole or the recess included in the carrier substrate”
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant's claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-11, 13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillelund (US 2012/0250925 A1) in view of Theuss et al (US 2016/0043664 A1) and further in view of Zoellin et al (US 2012/0212925 A1) and further in view of Tibbetts (US 6,031,922).
Regarding claim 1, Lillelund discloses a piezoelectric microelectromechanical system microphone assembly (Lillelund; Fig 2A; Para [0040]) comprising: a carrier substrate including one of a through-hole or a recess (Lillelund; Fig 2A; carrier substrate 201); and a package (Lillelund; Fig 2A; package 107) including a microelectromechanical system die having a piezoelectric microelectromechanical system microphone (Lillelund; Fig 2A; Para [0040]; MEMS 204) mounted on a microphone substrate (Lillelund; Fig 2A; MEMS 204 mounted on microphone substrate 112) and a lid (Lillelund; Fig 2A; lid 111), but do not expressly disclose the microelectromechanical system die and lid each being mounted directly on the same surface of the microphone substrate within a recess defined in the microphone substrate, at least a portion of the package disposed within the one of the through-hole or recess; the package being encapsulated by a conductive material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Theuss et al disclose a microphone assembly wherein at least a portion of the package disposed within the one of the through-hole or recess (Theuss et al; Fig 13; at least a portion of the package 100 disposed within through hole within PCB 1304 interpreted as carrier substrate). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the package disposition taught by Theuss as microphone disposition in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the size of the microphone assembly (Theuss et al; Para [0002]). Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Zoellin et al disclose a mems assembly comprising the microelectromechanical system die and lid each being mounted directly on the same surface of the microphone substrate and on a same plane within a recess defined in the microphone substrate (Zoellin et al; Fig 1; MEMS die 11 and lid 40 interpreted as MEMS die and lid being each being mounted directly on the same surface 135 of the microphone substrate within a recess 70 defined in the microphone substrate 130). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the mems mounting taught by Zoellin as package mounting in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to allow an increase in performance (Zoellin; Para [0004]). Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Tibbetts discloses a microphone assembly comprising the system die and lid each being mounted directly on the same surface of the microphone substrate and on a same plane within a recess defined in the microphone substrate (Tibbetts; Fig 10; system die and lid each being mounted directly on the same surface of the microphone substrate and on a same plane within a recess). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the microphone mounting taught by Tibbetts as package mounting in the assembly taught by Lillelund in view of Zoellin. The motivation to do so would have been to achieve substantial degree of cancellation of the acceleration signals (Tibbetts; col 8; lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 2, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 1 wherein the lid is a metal lid (Lillelund; Para [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the lid is at least partially disposed within the one of the through-hole the recess. However, in the same field of endeavor, Theuss et al disclose a microphone assembly wherein the lid is at least partially disposed within the one of the through-hole the recess (Theuss et al; Fig 13; lid 106 at least partially disposed within the one of the through-hole or recess within PCB 1304 interpreted as carrier substrate). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the package disposition taught by Theuss as microphone disposition in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the size of the microphone assembly (Theuss et al; Para [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 3, but do not expressly disclose wherein the lid is fully disposed within the one of the through-hole or the recess. However, in the same field of endeavor, Theuss et al disclose a microphone assembly wherein the lid is fully disposed within the one of the through-hole or the recess (Theuss et al; Fig 13; lid 106 is fully disposed within the one of the through-hole or recess within PCB 1304 interpreted as carrier substrate). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the package disposition taught by Theuss as microphone disposition in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the size of the microphone assembly (Theuss et al; Para [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 3 wherein an upper surface of the lid is substantially co-planar with a lower surface of the carrier substrate (Lillelund; Fig 2A; upper surface of lid 111 is substantially coplanar with lower surface of carrier substrate 201).
Regarding claim 6, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 1 wherein the lid is formed over the microelectromechanical system die and, together with the microphone substrate, defines a back volume around the piezoelectric microelectromechanical system microphone (Lillelund; Fig 2A; lid 111 over die 204 and together with substrate 112 defines a back volume around the MEMS 204).
Regarding claim 7, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 1 wherein the package is a bottom-port package (Lillelund; Fig 2A; package 107 has a bottom port 108).
Regarding claim 10, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 9 but do not expressly disclose wherein the microelectromechanical system die is at least partially disposed within the one of the through-hole or the recess. However, in the same field of endeavor, Theuss et al disclose a microphone assembly wherein the microelectromechanical system die is at least partially disposed within the one of the through-hole or the recess (Theuss et al; Fig 13; MEMS die at least partially disposed within through hole of carrier 1304). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the die and lid disposition taught by Theuss as microphone disposition in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the size of the microphone assembly (Theuss et al; Para [0002]).
Regarding claim 11, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 9 but do not expressly disclose wherein the one of the through-hole or the recess is the recess, and the carrier substrate further includes an opening providing acoustic communication between the microelectromechanical system microphone and an environment outside of the package. However, in the same field of endeavor, Theuss et al disclose a microphone assembly wherein the one of the through-hole or the recess is the recess, and the carrier substrate further includes an opening providing acoustic communication between the microelectromechanical system microphone and an environment outside of the package (Theuss et al; Fig 13; through hole of carrier substrate 1304 includes an opening in lid 106 providing acoustic communication between MEMS and an environment outside of the package 100). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the die and lid disposition taught by Theuss as microphone disposition in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the size of the microphone assembly (Theuss et al; Para [0002]).
Regarding claim 13, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 9 but do not expressly disclose wherein the one of the through-hole or the recess is the through-hole. However, in the same field of endeavor, Theuss et al disclose a microphone assembly wherein the one of the through-hole or the recess is the through-hole (Theuss et al; Fig 13; through hole within carrier 1304). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the package disposition taught by Theuss as microphone disposition in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to reduce the size of the microphone assembly (Theuss et al; Para [0002]).
Regarding claim 18, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of any claim 1 further including an application specific integrated circuit disposed within the package (Lillelund; Fig 2A; circuit 207).
Regarding claim 19, Lillelund discloses an electronic device (Lillelund; Para [0039]) module including the assembly of claim 1 (Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Lillund discloses an electronic device (Lillelund; Para [0039]) including the electronic device module of claim 19 (Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin et al and further in view of Tibbetts disclose claim 19).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillelund (US 2012/0250925 A1) in view of Theuss et al (US 2016/0043664 A1) and further in view of Zoellin et al (US 2012/0212925 A1) and further in view of Tibbetts (US 6,031,922) and further in view of Dehe et al (US 2018/0317021 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 7, but do not expressly disclose wherein a piezoelectric membrane of the piezoelectric microelectromechanical system microphone is disposed proximate the bottom port and between the bottom port and a support substrate for the piezoelectric membrane. However, in the same field of endeavor, Dehe et al disclose a microphone assembly wherein a piezoelectric membrane of the piezoelectric microelectromechanical system microphone is disposed proximate the bottom port and between the bottom port and a support substrate for the piezoelectric membrane (Dehe et al; Fig 6; membrane 21 proximate bottom port 13 and between the bottom port 13 and support substrate 2). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the membrane disposition taught by Dehe as microphone disposition in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a liquid tight seal between the front volume ii and the back volume (Dehe et al; Para [0017]).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillelund (US 2012/0250925 A1) in view of Theuss et al (US 2016/0043664 A1) and further in view of Zoellin et al (US 2012/0212925 A1) and further in view of Tibbetts (US 6,031,922) and further in view of Loeppert et al (US 2014/0044297 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 1 but do not expressly disclose further comprising a mesh disposed over a piezoelectric membrane of the microelectromechanical system microphone. However, in the same field of endeavor, Loeppert et al disclose a mems assembly further comprising a mesh disposed over a piezoelectric membrane of the microelectromechanical system microphone (Loeppert et al; Fig 2; Para [0057]; mesh 112 disposed over MEMS 108). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the protection taught by Loeppert et al as protection in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to prevent at least some contaminants from passing therethrough (Loeppert et al; Para [0057]).
Regarding claim 16, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin and further in view of Tibbetts and further in view of Loeppert disclose the assembly of claim 15 but do not expressly disclose wherein the mesh is conductive. However, in the same field of endeavor, Loeppert et al disclose a mems assembly wherein the mesh is conductive (Loeppert et al; Fig 2; Para [0057]; metal mesh 112 is conductive). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the protection taught by Loeppert et al as protection in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to prevent at least some contaminants from passing therethrough (Loeppert et al; Para [0057]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillelund (US 2012/0250925 A1) in view of Theuss et al (US 2016/0043664 A1) and further in view of Zoellin et al (US 2012/0212925 A1) and further in view of Tibbetts (US 6,031,922) and further in view of Loeppert et al (US 2014/0044297 A1) and further in view of Kuo et al (US 9,162,871 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin and further in view of Tibbetts and further in view of Loeppert et al disclose the assembly of claim 16 but do not expressly disclose wherein the mesh is grounded. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kuo et al disclose a mems assembly wherein the mesh is grounded (Kuo et al; col 5; lines 50-60). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the mesh grounding taught by Kuo et al as protection for the mesh the assembly taught by Lillelund in view of Loeppert. The motivation to do so would have been to maximize metal mesh (Kuo et al; col 5; lines 60-65).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillelund (US 2012/0250925 A1) in view of Theuss et al (US 2016/0043664 A1) and further in view of Zoellin et al (US 2012/0212925 A1) and further in view of Tibbetts (US 6,031,922) and further in view of Pahl et al (US 2011/0018076 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 1 but do not expressly disclose wherein the package is encapsulated by a conductive material. However, Moreover, in the same field of endeavor, Pahl et al disclose a mems assembly wherein the package is encapsulated by a conductive material (Pahl et al; Fig 10; Para [0073]; package of MEMS encapsulated by conductive material 18). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the encapsulation taught by Pahl as package encapsulation in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the efficiency of the production (Pahl et al; Para [0073]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillelund (US 2012/0250925 A1) in view of Theuss et al (US 2016/0043664 A1) and further in view of Zoellin et al (US 2012/0212925 A1) and further in view of Tibbetts (US 6,031,922) and further in view of Lee et al (US 2011/0165717 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Lillelund in view of Theuss et al and further in view of Zoellin and further in view of Tibbetts disclose the assembly of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the microelectromechanical system microphone includes a support substrate having walls and a piezoelectric membrane disposed on upper ends of the walls, one or more vias formed of conductive material passing through interiors of the walls from lower ends of the walls to the upper ends of the walls. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee et al disclose a microphone assembly wherein the microelectromechanical system microphone includes a support substrate having walls (Lee et al; Fig 9; substrate 230) and a piezoelectric membrane disposed on upper ends of the walls (Lee et al; Fig 9; membrane 248), one or more vias formed of conductive material passing through interiors of the walls from lower ends of the walls to the upper ends of the walls (Lee et al; Fig 9; via 237). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to use the membrane disposition taught by Lee as microphone disposition in the assembly taught by Lillelund. The motivation to do so would have been to improve the sensitivity of the microphone (Lee et al; Para [0007]).
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 KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights