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 .
Drawings Entered
Applicant’s request in “Remarks - 12/16/2025 - Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, for replacement of Figures 6A-6B in Drawings - 12/16/2025” has been considered, and entered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment of claims 1-11, and cancellation of claims 12-20 in “Claims - 12/16/2025” with the “Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection - 12/16/2025”, have been acknowledged.
Examiner like to note that in “Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 09/08/2025”, Applicant stated that “Applicant elects claims 1-11 (Group I) drawn to a MEMS structure” on “Requirement for Restriction/Election - 08/12/2025”. The requirement, in part, Restriction to one of the following inventions (Devices I or method II is required under 35 U.S.C. 121.
I. Claim 1, drawn to a MEMS structure, classified in CPC symbol having subclass B81B7/0006 and B81B2207/07. The dependent claims 2-11 will be examined with this group.
II. Claim 12, drawn to a method for detecting a change in a parameter, classified in CPC symbols B81C1/00269 and B81C2203/0109 The dependent claims 13-20 will be examined with this group (emphasis added).
However, Applicant’s amendment of claims 1-11, in “Claims - 12/16/2025” have included method’s limitation that had not elected (and cancelled), and subsequently changed the claims scope from structure to mixed and/or method process. This is because of the new amended features as follows:
(Currently Amended) A MEMS device comprising:
wherein the plurality of grooves is configured to receive molten bonding material during bonding,
3. (Currently Amended) The MEMS device of claim 1, wherein the grooves are formed by crystallographic etching of silicon, such that groove depth is self-limited by crystal planes.
4. (Currently Amended) The MEMS device of claim 1, wherein the grooves and the cavity are formed in a same etching step, and the cavity extends deeper than the grooves.
5. (Currently Amended) The MEMS device of claim 1, wherein the bonding material comprises a solder preform, and at least 80% of the volume of the bonding material is accommodated within the plurality of grooves after bonding.
11. (Currently Amended) The MEMS device of claim 1, wherein the first portion comprises silicon, and the grooves are formed by anisotropic etching along silicon crystal planes.
The MEMS device structure as classified in “Requirement for Restriction/Election - 09/08/2025” were independent or distinct because claims recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of device and process. The requirement of restriction based on the species is deemed proper, and is therefore made FINAL. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, amended claims 1-10 are not entered. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
In view of the above, this office action considers claims 1-11 in Claims - 09/08/202 pending for prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments “Remarks - 12/16/2025 - Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Applicant’s amendment of claims 1-11, in “Claims - 12/16/2025” has not been entered as noted above as applicant’s amendment of claims 1-11, in “Claims - 12/16/2025” have included method’s limitation that had not elected (and cancelled), and subsequently changed the claims scope from structure to mixed and/or method process.
Since this office action considers claims 1-11 in Claims - 09/08/202 pending for prosecution , this Office Action maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, with some adjustment, for reasons of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the solder preform has a first volume " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the solder preform” in the claim. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, are vague and ill-defined, as a result of limitation “bond region, the bond region comprising a plurality of grooves” (Ln 2-3). The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “bond region” includes first and second portion or not. This uncertainty will propagate to the limitation “the bond region comprising a plurality of grooves”, since the grooves may also be arranged outside of the first and second portion.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, drawing does support the "the alignment insulating layer and the test insulating layer are disposed on a same layer”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 2-11, those are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), because of their dependency status from claim 1, as well as for the following.
Regarding Claim 4, the instant claim recites limitation in view of the parent claim 1, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, in claim 4, are vague and ill-defined, as a result of limitation “wherein the grooves do not form an acute angle with the surface of the second portion”. The feature is indefinite because it is unclear as i) a groove is not a surface and therefore it can’t form an angle with a surface; ii) the surface of the second portion (see also drawing objection for this claim in section I, supra, for second portion) has not been defined , therefore it is unclear which surface it referred; and iii) one of the ordinary skilled in the art would interpret a surface forms two angles with another intersecting surface, wherein one of the angles is necessarily acute and the other is obtuse, when this angles are not defined as 90 degree.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, drawing does support the "the alignment insulating layer and the test insulating layer are disposed on a same layer”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the instant claim recites limitation in view of the parent claim 1, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, in claim 9, are vague and ill-defined, as a result of limitation “the solder preform” (see also claim rejection for this claim in section II, supra). “The solder preform” is not a part of the device structure, and it probably an item in manufacturing process.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, drawing does support the "the alignment insulating layer and the test insulating layer are disposed on a same layer”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claims 1-11, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706. 03.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moazzam Hossain whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Friday 8.30 A.M -5.00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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 to register user only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would 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.
/MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
February 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights