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 .
ELECTION
Election of Group II and Figures 1-3 without traversal has been received.
OBJECTION TO SPECIFICATION
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “21b” (line 5, Para 28 of Applicant’s Publication) should read - - 21a - - .
Appropriate correction is required.
OBJECTION TO DRAWINGS
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "122" (film) and "120" (anchor) have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
35 USC 112(B) REJECTION
Claims 1-4,6-13,16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1,16,20, “microelectromechanical” (italics added), MEMS and “microstructure” (italics added” are dimensionally undefined, so what can it mean? Consider that different publications/patents provide different dimensional meaning for different structural elements in "MEMS" for their particular publications/patents, but no such description (i.e., range and identified structural component) is apparent in the instant application. What structural limitation(s) would one of ordinary skill attach to the claimed structure, when neither range nor single claimed structure in that claimed apparatus is within such (undisclosed) range? For example, note that Pat Pub 2009/0108193 relates (Para 43) micromechanical/MEMS structures to a range of 0.1 um —I mm, Pat Pub 2006/0261032 relates (Para 38) micromechanical/MEMS structures in the range of 0.01 microns to a few millimeters", Pat 6,679,055 relates (lines 39-43, col. 1) micromechanical/MEMS to 0.1 micron to 1000 microns" and Pat Pub 2014/0264900 relates (Para 3) micromechanical/MEMS to components of 1 - 100 micrometers (0.001 to 0.1 mm), all collectively providing for different distinct ranges. How is one of ordinary skill to recognize what range Applicant's claimed limitation "MEMS" might relate when none has been identified? Different publications provide different ranges, so there is no one single accepted range. Understand, the main difficulty here is in the lack of any dimensional meaning (range?) of the claimed term "MEMS" in Applicant's specification. What is Applicant's intended meaning for the term “MEMS”? Is there any support for such? Does Applicant have a dimension for 1 component that satisfies? The
prior art has different publications that provided different ranges (meanings) for the same term, yet it appears the instant application provides none. The limitation “MEMS?” is in the claim, and it MUST mean something. Finally, note that MEMS is related micro, which only means 1/1,000,000, and that no units are provided in the specification which compounds the uncertainty in this claim. The sum of a large number of microinches, micrometers etc. can be a huge distance.
As to claim 6, isn’t “the platform” the same structure as “a film” (line 6, claim 1), and thus twice claim?1
As to claim 6, the “an anchor” 20 is a portion of the spacer structure 15. Again, the same structure is twice claimed.
As to claim 10, the platform 121 is supported laterally by the film 122, not the anchor 120 that is under the film 116 (in Figure 6). The claim is not consistent with the figures.
As to claim 16, it is confusing as to what structure in the drawings related to lines 5-7. Consider that Paragraph 6 (Publication) employs the phrase “suspended support structure”, but does not provide any suggestion.
As to claim 19, what does the “an anchor” correspond to in the specification and drawings in regard to elected Figures 1-3? Is the “outer frame 17” (Para 24) of the spacer structure 15 the “anchor” per Para 23? There is an anchor 120 in non-elected Figure 5; so was claim 19 misidentified as being directed to Figures 1-3?
As to claim 19, what structure does the “outer frame” of the suspend support structure relate to? There is an “outer portion 22 of the film 16” (Para 27), but that nothing surrounds portion 22. There is an outer frame 21b (Para 28) but the only item that surrounds that frame 21b is film 22, which film 22 is not an anchor.
As to claim 19, lines 1-2 are confusing because they are not consistent with the drawings. Note that the outer frame 17 (“an anchor”?) of the structure 15 does not “extends around the outer frame 17” (italics added).
As to claim 20, “the support structure” was not introduced, and possibly is the same structure already claimed in lines 2-3, but which have different name tags. Is the same structure being claimed twice, or (maybe) lines 2 comprises the support structure, or (maybe) the support structure comprises lines 2-3, What is Applicant’s position?
As to claim 20, “the film defines a platform laterally inward from the outer portion of the film” is confusing because
35 USC 112(D) REJECTION
Claims 7,21,22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. (1) Claim 7 combines an anchor portion with the spacer structure, removing claim 6’s separate “an anchor” and “a spacer structure” (claim 1), (2) claim 21 removes “platform spaced laterally inward” (italics added, line 9, claim 20). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
COMMENT
Comment regarding claim 14 (cancelled): The method depicts a “a cavity”, but no structure provides for such. A cavity is empty space. A cavity is nothing. Consider that a cavity is generally claimed as structure that has that cavity.
35 USC 102(A1) REJECTIONS
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Qiu ‘888.
As to claim 1, Qiu et al CN 112938888 teach (Figures 1,2) a device, comprising: a support structure 2; a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) die including a microstructure 7; and a connection structure 3-5 between the microelectromechanical system die and the support structure, the connection structure includes: a spacer structure 4 coupled to the support structure; and a film layer 5 on a face of the spacer structure opposite to the support structure, the film is spaced apart from the support structure by the spacer structure, and the film is coupled to the microelectromechanical system die, a cavity at least in part delimited by the spacer structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
35 USC 102(A1) REJECTIONS
Claim(s) 1,3,4,6,7,10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by You CN 105967137.
As to claim 1, You teaches (Figure 1A) a device, comprising: a support structure 102; a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) die 104 including a microstructure; and a connection structure 3-5 between the microelectromechanical system die and the support structure, the connection structure includes: a spacer structure 156 coupled to the support structure 102; and a film layer 152 on a face of the spacer structure opposite to the support structure, the film is spaced apart from the support structure by the spacer structure, and the film is operatively coupled to the microelectromechanical system die, a cavity (between film 152 and substrate 102 and the spacers 156 in Figure 1A) at least in part delimited by the spacer structure
As to claims 3,4, the cavity between film 152 and substrate 102 and the spacers 156 in Figure 1A.
As to claims 6,7, anchor 154.
As to claim 10, the anchor 154 is within a portion of the platform.
35 USC 102(A1) REJECTIONS
Claim(s) 1,2,4,6,7,8,10,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jiang et al 9446941.
As to claims 1,2,4, Jiang teaches (Figure 5) a device, comprising: a support structure 100; a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) die 304 including a microstructure; and a connection structure 118-312 between the microelectromechanical system die and the support structure, the connection structure includes: a spacer structure (left most 316, and bumper 320 which will which bumps the structure 100 and thus is coupled to support structure 100 to that extent) coupled to the support structure 100; and a film layer 318 on a face of the spacer structure opposite to the support structure, the film is spaced apart from the support structure by the spacer structure, and the film 318 is operatively coupled to the microelectromechanical system die, a cavity 324 (between the two spacers, be it 316-316 or 316-230) at least in part delimited by the spacer structure
As to claim 2, the film is dry and resists.
As to claims 6,7,8,
PNG
media_image2.png
202
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claims 3,4, the cavity between film 152 and substrate 102 and the spacers 156 in Figure 1A.
As to claims 6,7, anchor 154.
As to claim 10, the anchor 154 is within a portion of the platform.
As to claim 13, support 100 is a printed circuit board.
35 USC 102A1 REJECTIONS
Claim(s) 16,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jiang et al 9446941.
As to claim 16, Jiang et al ‘941 teach (Figure 1) a device, comprising: a substrate 312 including a first surface; a control die 304 on the first surface of the substrate, the control die 304 including a second surface facing away from the substrate; a suspended support structure 310 suspended over the second surface of the control die 304, the suspended support structure 310 including an outer frame and one or more openings (which retain wires 314) that are surrounded by the outer frame; and a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) die 302 coupled to the outer frame of the suspended support structure.
As to claim 17, the film 306 is connected to both support structure 310 and control die 304, and thus is an anchor as much as claimed.
PRIOR ART CITED- NOT APPLIED
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tocchio ‘991 (listed 1449) teaches a chip 56 supported on a base 52 via 4 elastic pillar 60 elements. There is no film (per Applicant’s claims 1,20), no support (per lines 5-6, per Applicant’s claim 16).
Dawson ‘724 (listed 1449) teaches MEMS device 28 on a support 22, and connection structure 40 between the two. However, there is no suggestion of either film or structure that provides space (i.e. spacer) per Applicant’s claim 1; no suggestion of a support structure as called for in claim 16, and suggestion of a film (as called for in lines 7-10 of claim 20).
Zhou et al CN 111003683 teach a MEMS chip 1 on a thermal expansion coefficient matching element 25.
Zhang et al CN 108622847 teach (Figures 3,4) a MEMS chip, PCB substrate, gasket mounting for good stress isolation and temperature stress matching
Deh CN 107128868 teaches MEMS pressure sensor 30, mounted on support members 40, the members mounted to a packaging member 20. Reference is made to a flexible support film between the MEMS device and package. Such is to take into account thermal fluctuation sensitivity.
Gu et al CN107207244 teach use of flexible support film (or buffer material) between MEMS and package to address package stress such as thermal stress.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Contrast with “the film defines a platform” (claim 4).
Prosecution Insights