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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 5/4/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims, cancellation of claims 6, 14-20, and the addition of new claims 21-28. Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 21-28 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed towards newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
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) 1-3, 7-13 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20060246631 by Lutz et al. taken collectively with DE 102017218635 B4, hereinafter DE 635.
Claim 1: Lutz discloses a method for manufacturing an encapsulated MEMS device, comprising: providing a cavity structure having an inner volume comprising a plurality of MEMS elements (00223-0255), which are relatively displaceable with respect to each other (see e.g. 0082 “anti-stiction layer comprises a coating on one, some or all of mechanical structures 16a-d of MEMS 10 to increase hydrophobicity and/or decrease friction and wear of moving MEMS structures”), and having an opening structure to the inner volume (Figure 3K and accompanying text, see e.g. 0081 related to antistiction channel); depositing a Self-Assembled Monolayer through the opening structure onto exposed surfaces within the inner volume of the cavity structure (0081 related to SAM introduction into chamber, see 0070 stating “an anti-stiction channel is formed in the encapsulation layer(s) and/or the substrate thereby providing "access" to the chamber containing some or all of the active members or electrodes of the mechanical structures of the MEMS.“) ; and closing the cavity structure by applying a layer structure on the opening structure for providing a hermetically closed cavity (Figure 3L and accompanying text, 0086).
Lutz discloses sealing comprising depositing a layer by LPCVD, CVD, PECVD (0121) and discloses such can include a nitride, or oxide material or polysilicon (0121) for the hermetically closed cavity; however, fails to discloses claimed sealing process. However, DE 635, also in the art of encapsulating MEMS devices (title) and discloses depositing a first cover layer onto an outer surface of the cavity structure with a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process (abstract, “a CVD layer deposition to form a first cover layer”,) and depositing a second cover layer onto the first cover layer with a high density plasma chemical vapor deposition (HDPCVD) process (abstract, “performing (160) an HDP layer deposition with a first and second substep of forming a second cover layer (250) on the first cover layer (240)”), the HDPCVD process hermetically sealing the open structure to the inner volume and retaining a vacuum generated inside the cavity structure (“ MEMS elements or MEMS sensors that require a hermetically sealed vacuum cavity”, “the HDP process is a high vacuum process, a very low pressure is ensured in the cavity as this is the process pressure”). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lutz to include the CVD and HPCVD process to seal and provide a vacuum for the cavity with the MEMS.
Claim 2: Lutz discloses SAM by vapor deposition (0225).
Claim 3: Lutz discloses the SAM can include FOTS of FDTS (0255)
Claim 6-7: Lutz discloses sealing comprising depositing a layer by LPCVD, CVD, PECVD (0121) and discloses such can include a nitride, or oxide material or polysilicon (0121).
Claim 8: Lutz discloses a MEMS structure comprising providing a layer arrangement on a carrier substrate, wherein the layer arrangement has a first and a second membrane structure spaced apart from one another and a counter electrode structure arranged therebetween (see Figure 6A-6F, 6E illustrates carrier, 14, with membrane structure 36 and membrane structure 30a, with electrodes structure therebetween, 22) , wherein a sacrificial material is arranged in an intermediate region between the counter electrode structure and the first and second membrane structures (see sacrificial material 38), and wherein at least one of the first and second membrane structure has the opening structure to the intermediate region with the sacrificial material (See Figure 6D); and removing the sacrificial material from the intermediate region in order to obtain the cavity structure between the first and second membrane structure (see Figure 6E).
Claim 9: Lutz discloses a mechanical connection structure is mechanically coupled between the first and second membrane structure and is mechanically decoupled from the counter electrode structure in the cavity structure (Figure 6F and accompanying text, see also Figure 8B and accompanying text).
Claim 10: Lutz discloses etching to remove the sacrificial material (0095, etching would encompass the broadly drafted wet or vapor as claimed, see e.g. 0104 related to vapor etching).
Claim 11: Lutz discloses a plurality of distributed openings (0095, Figure 3D)
Claim 12: Lutz discloses the openings and such appears to meet the requirement of symmetrically distributed around a geometric midpoint of the membrane (see Figure 3D)
Claims 12-13: Lutz generally discloses a plurality of openings and while the reference fails to explicitly disclose the symmetrical or asymmetrical nature of the openings. Here, Lutz merely discloses a plurality of vents, passages and spacing them apart to permit etching and/or removal of the selected portions of the sacrificial layer (0095) and therefore the location and pattern of the vents would be a result effective variable, directly affecting the ability to remove/vent the sacrificial material upon etching and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum vent pattern/locations to provide the efficient removal/venting of the sacrificial material.
Claims 25-28: Lutz with DE 635 discloses all that is taught above. DE 635 discloses depositing a first covering layer of an oxide material (“In CVD deposition, for example, oxide material, such as a silicon oxide”). DE 635 discloses a SiN layer deposited by CVD on the cover layer (“a further covering or sealing layer, e.g. B. made of a silicon nitride material, can be applied with a further CVD process in order to provide a further hermetic sealing layer on the top of the existing layer stack. “) As such, using the materials, process and an additional SiN layer as taught by DE 635 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reap the benefits of providing a hermetic sealed cavity for MEMS device.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz and DE 656 taken with US Patent Application Publication 20040033639 by Chinn et al. and US Patent Application 20080108163 by Chen et al.
Lutz with DE 656 discloses all that is taught above and discloses applying a antistiction coating to the MEMS device as a SAM coating; however, fails to disclose the plasma oxidizing surface treatment before deposition and a remote plasma after deposition of the SAM as claimed. However, Chinn, also in the art of MEMS devices and deposition of an antistiction SAM coating (abstract, 0018) and discloses treating the surfaces of the MEMS with a oxidizing plasma prior to SAM formation to permit proper surface structure and bonding of the SAM to the surface via the OH bonds generated (0018) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have included the oxygen plasma as claimed to surface reactivity so as to adhere the SAM.
Lutz with DE 656 and Chinn fails to discloses the remote plasma process after the SAM deposition to removing the plasma. However, Chen, also in the art of forming a MEM device with a cavity and depositing an anti stiction layer onto the device, such as FOTS and FDTS as taught by Lutz (0010) and discloses coating MEMS devices that are in the cavity that move relative to each other (0013) and discloses after applying the SAM, selectively removing the SAM from the portion of the external surface using a plasma prior to sealing (0017, 0023, 0028) and therefore taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have include the plasma removal as taught by Chen, after SAM and prior to sealing as such is taught by Chen as a known to be performed to remove SAM prior to sealing the cavity in MEMS process.
As for the requirement of remote plasma, Chinn discloses the plasma processing can either be remote or direct and therefore selecting from the known plasma processing techniques would have been obvious as predictable (0054). A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claim 5: Chinn discloses the OH groups of the surface react with the SAM to bond the SAM to the MEMS structure (0018) and thus reasonably reads on the covalent bond as claimed. Here, additionally, the prior art discloses the same process steps and materials that the prior art discloses as resulting in covalent bonding and therefore while the prior art merely discloses bonding and does not explicitly describe this as covalent bond, as the prior art discloses all that is required by the applicant to achieve covalent bond (oxidizing plasma and SAMs), the prior art will necessarily result in the claimed bonding unless the applicant is using specific SAMS or surface chemistry that is neither claimed nor disclosed as being required to achieve the covalent bonding.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz with DE 656 taken with Chinn.
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above related to the removal of sacrificial material, the examiner cites here Chinn, also in the art of MEMS structures and discloses removing the sacrificial layers via wet etching (0007) and therefore taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, using a known technique to remove sacrificial material, including wet etching, would have been obvious as predictable as Lutz discloses removal of sacrificial material via etching.
Claim(s) 13 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz with DE 656 taken with Chen.
While examiner maintains the obviousness of the claims as set forth above, the examiner cites here Chen, also including an opening to form a cavity and discloses the opening is asymmetrical relative to the geometric midpoint of the membrane (see opening 30 at Figure 1). Therefore, as noted it would have been obvious to include openings as desired to provide access to the internal cavity as suggested by Chen.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz and DE 656 taken with US Patent Application 20120055931 by van Arendonk or US Patent Application 20080169521 by Foster et al.
Lutz and DE 656 discloses all that is taught above and DE 656 discloses providing a vacuum for MEMS cavity; however, Lutz and DE 656 fails to disclose the claimed gas in the cavity. However, van Arendonk, also in the art of cavity containing MEMS device discloses creating a vacuum for the MEMS cavity or alternatively backfilling the cavity with various gases including CO2 to help reduce corrosion and thereby increase the lifetime of the components in the cavity (0002) and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have provided the cavity with a gas comprising e.g. carbon dioxide, to reap the benefits as outlined by van Arendonk by providing a gaseous atmosphere to protect the MEMS devices in the cavity from corrosion and increase the lifetime of the components.
Additionally, as noted above, DE 656 explicitly discloses a vacuum in the cavity and van Arendonk discloses that to “improved performance and/or achieve longer lifetime, many devices require or would benefit from vacuum packaging or alternatively … gas filling the cavity with dry nitrogen, carbon dioxide, a noble gas or other gas” and therefore van Arendonk discloses a vacuum or CO2 are known alternatives for gases in the cavity holding the MEMS device to provide improved performance and/or achieve longer lifetime. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Alternatively, Foster, also in the art of a MEMS device encapsulated within a hermetic seal cavity (0011) and discloses using an environment of carbon dioxide within the cavity to provide insulating gas within the cavity to provide benefits to protect device during use (0008, 00006). There, it would have been obvious to have provided the cavity with an environment of pure carbon dioxide to reap the benefits as outlined by Foster.
Claims 22-24: Limitations of these claims are specifically addressed above and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth herein.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights