NON-FINAL REJECTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
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 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 1-6 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto et al. (US 2020/0127635 Al, previously cited, “Matsumoto”).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsumoto teaches an integrated circuit (IC) (fig.1) comprising: a substrate (element 10 or 60); an acoustic signal generator (element 11) over the substrate (element 10); and an encapsulation material (element 31) covering the acoustic signal generator (element 11) and the substrate (element 10) (Fig.1; [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 2, the IC of claim 1 is taught by Matsumoto.
Matsumoto further teaches wherein the acoustic signal generator includes a transducer having at least two electrodes (elements 21) [0052].
Regarding Claim 3, the IC of claim 2 is taught by Matsumoto.
Matsumoto further teaches wherein the acoustic signal generator is configurable to transmit acoustic signals along a direction perpendicular to a surface of the semiconductor substrate (shown in fig.1).
Regarding Claim 4, the IC of claim 3 is taught by Matsumoto.
Matsumoto further teaches wherein the acoustic signal generator is configurable to transmit the acoustic signals along multiple directions each having a different angle with respect to the surface (The acoustic wave device is configurable to transmit the acoustic signals along multiple directions. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Matsumoto).
Regarding Claim 5, the IC of claim 2 is taught by Matsumoto.
Matsumoto further teaches wherein the at least two electrodes include a first electrode and a second electrode, the acoustic signal generator further includes a piezoelectric material (element 11) coupled to the first and second electrodes (fig.1 shows that the multiple electrodes 21 are connected to the piezoelectric layer 11).
Regarding Claim 6, the IC of claim 5 is taught by Matsumoto.
Matsumoto further teaches wherein the piezoelectric material is between the first and second electrodes (two electrodes 21 are spaced apart and the piezoelectric layer is connecting them. Thus, the limitation is broadly taught by Matsumoto.).
Regarding Claim 22, the IC of claim 1 is taught by Matsumoto.
Matsumoto further teaches wherein the acoustic signal generator is configurable to transmit acoustic signals through at least one of the substrate or the encapsulation material (The acoustic wave device is configurable to transmit the acoustic signals along multiple directions. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Matsumoto).
Regarding Claim 23, the IC of claim 1 is taught by Matsumoto.
Matsumoto further teaches wherein the substrate is a semiconductor substrate [0051].
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 15-18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Djordjev et al. (US 2017/0090028 A1, “Djordjev”).
Regarding Claim 15, the IC of claim 1 is taught by Matsumoto.
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic signal is transmitted at each of a predetermined set of frequencies for a predetermined interval of time.
However, Djordjev teaches methods, systems and storage media are described, each of which may be used to generate an image of an object using ultrasonic plane waves [Abstract] wherein the acoustic signal is transmitted at each of a predetermined set of frequencies for a predetermined interval of time [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto’s system with the teaching of Djordjev since this would provide a precise scanning of a target.
Regarding Claim 16, the IC of claim 1 is taught by Matsumoto.
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach that the IC further comprising a drive signal generator configurable to provide a drive signal to the acoustic signal generator, and the acoustic signal generator transmits acoustic signals responsive to the drive signal.
However, Djordjev teaches methods, systems and storage media are described, each of which may be used to generate an image of an object using ultrasonic plane waves [Abstract] wherein the system further comprising a drive signal generator configurable to provide a drive signal to the acoustic signal generator, and the acoustic signal generator transmits acoustic signals responsive to the drive signal [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto’s system with the teaching of Djordjev since these electronics are standard in the art to generate signals.
Regarding Claim 17, the IC of claim 16 is taught by Matsumoto in view of Djordjev. Djordjev further teaches wherein the drive signal includes a current signal [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto’s system with the teaching of Djordjev since voltage is equivalent to current in the field of generating signals.
Regarding Claim 18, the IC of claim 16 is taught by Matsumoto in view of Djordjev.
Djordjev further teaches further comprising: a first die having the acoustic signal generator; and a second die having the drive signal generator (shown in Fig.3; [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding Claim 24, the IC of claim 1 is taught by Matsumoto.
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach that wherein the encapsulation material includes a mold compound.
However, Djordjev teaches wherein the encapsulation material includes a mold compound ([0117] teaches the housing may be formed from any of a variety of manufacturing processes, including injection molding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto’s system with the teaching of Djordjev since mold compound is a well-known material in semiconductor encapsulation.
Allowable Subject Matter
(i) Claims 7, 9 and Claims 8 and 10-14 that are depended on claims 7 and 9, are 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Limitations of the claims 7 and 9 are the reasons for allowability.
(ii) Claims 19-21 are allowed.
With regard to Claim 19, the prior arts of the record do not teach or fairly suggest a method for transmitting acoustic signals, the method comprising, in combination with the other recited steps, transmitting the acoustic signals via at least one of an encapsulation material or a substrate of an integrated circuit (IC); responsive to transmitting the acoustic signal, detecting at least one of: whether a mechanical integrity compromise of the IC occurs, or an unknown or unauthorized object is coupled to the IC.
With regard to Claim 21, the prior arts of the record do not teach or fairly suggest a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a controller of an IC, causes the controller to, comprising, in combination with the other recited elements, transmit the acoustic signals via at least one of an encapsulation material or a substrate of the IC; responsive to transmitting the acoustic signal, detecting at least one of: whether a mechanical integrity compromise of the IC occurs, or an unknown or unauthorized object is coupled to the IC.
Claim 20 is allowed by virtue of their dependence from Claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/16/2025 with respect to claims 1-24 have been fully considered.
With regards to amended claim applicant argues in page 6:
“On September 16, 2025, a Notice of Allowance was mailed for this application. In this Amendment, claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-11, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 21 are amended, and new claims 22-24 are added. Claims 1-24 are pending. In view of the Notice of Allowance, Applicant believes the claims (as further amended herein) are still allowable.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The requirement for a proper response to a rejection may be found in 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07. The requirements for obviousness are discussed in MPEP § 2142. The requirements for broadest reasonable interpretation are discussed in MPEP 2111.01 (I) and 2173.01(I). The requirements for analogous art are discussed in MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
As to claim interpretation, MPEP 2111.01 (I) states “[U]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention or as of the effective filing date of the patent application.”
As to analogous art, MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) discloses “[R]ather, a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325.”
Examiner’s explanation:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While independent claims 19, 21 and few dependent claims are allowable, independent claim 1 and a group of dependent claims are not allowable which are explained in the rejection section.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tsai et al. (US 9,617,144 B2) teaches an integrated package of at least one environmental sensor and at least one MEMS acoustic sensor is disclosed. The package contains a shared port that exposes both sensors to the environment, wherein the environmental sensor measures characteristics of the environment and the acoustic sensor measures sound waves. [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855