DETAILED ACTION
General Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, (claims 1-10 and 20), in the reply filed on
12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 11-19 were canceled by Applicant. Claims 1-10 and 20-29 are pending.
Newly submitted claims 21-29 include limitations of method claims 11-19, these are being
joined with the withdrawn method claims (11-19).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph
[0062] pedestals 504B and 504D are described as separated elements, however, in Figures 12 and 15, the both pedestals 504B and 504D are indicated as the same element reference 504D.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 10,11,13,14 and 16 shows
consecutives pedestals 504A-504D, wherein 504B and 504D do not include protrusion and these are disclosed as two different elements in paragraph [0062]. However, in Figures 12 and 15, the both pedestals 504B and 504D are indicated as the same element reference 504D.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 5-6 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.
Regarding claim 5, it recites the limitation “…wherein a bottom area of the first protrusion is greater than a top area of the protrusion” is not explained. The limitation has an antecedent issue of “the protrusion”. Therefore, it is indefinite. For the examination purpose and according to claim 1, the limitation “…wherein a bottom area of the first protrusion is greater than a top area of the protrusion” is interpreted as “…wherein a bottom area of the first protrusion is greater than a top area of the first protrusion”.
Regarding claim 6, it recites the limitation “…wherein the top area of the protrusion is greater than the bottom area of the first protrusion” is not explained. The limitation has an antecedent issue of “the top area”, “the protrusion” and “the bottom area”. Therefore, it is indefinite. For the examination purpose and according to claim 1, the limitation “…wherein the top area of the protrusion is greater than the bottom area of the first protrusion” is interpreted as “…wherein a top area of the first protrusion is greater than a bottom area of the first protrusion”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Verheijden et al. (US 20090267166 A1, hereinafter Verheijden).
Re: Independent Claim 1, Verheijden teaches a microdevice (Fig. 2f), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
430
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Verheijden’s Figure 2f-Annotated.
a first pedestal (30-M a middle portion of 30, 30 is made of Poly-Si [0067], Fig. 2f-Annotated);
a second pedestal (30-R a right portion of 30, in [0067], Fig. 2f-Annotated) parallel (Fig. 2f-Annotated) to the first pedestal (30-M Fig. 2f-Annotated), the second pedestal (30-R Fig. 2f-Annotated) comprising a first protrusion (30-R-Up a right portion of 30 above to 30-R, in [0067], Fig. 2f-Annotated) on its top surface (Fig. 2f-Annotated);
a conformal dielectric layer (40 a porous-dielectric layer, in [0015, 0073], Fig. 2f-Annotated) over the first pedestal (30-M Fig. 2f-Annotated) and the second pedestal (30-R Fig. 2f-Annotated); and
a metal structure (60 a seal layer 60 made of aluminum [0070], Fig. 2f) formed over (Fig. 2f-Annotated) a portion of the conformal dielectric layer (40 Fig. 2f-Annotated), the metal structure (60 Fig. 2f-Annotated) comprising:
a first portion (60-first portion a lateral portion of 60 in [0070], Fig. 2f-Annotated) surrounding the first protrusion (30-R-Up, Fig. 2f-Annotated);
a second portion (60-second portion a top portion of 60 in [0070], Fig. 2f-Annotated) parallel (Fig. 2f-Annotated) to the top surface of the second pedestal (30-R Fig. 2f-Annotated), the second portion (60-second portion, Fig. 2f-Annotated) extending towards (Fig. 2f-Annotated) the first pedestal (30-M Fig. 2f-Annotated), the second portion (60-second portion) being higher and longer (Fig. 2f-Annotated) than the first portion (60-first portion, Fig. 2f-Annotated); and
a third portion (60-third portion a portion of 60 connecting 60-first portion and 60-second portion in [0070], Fig. 2f-Annotated) connecting the first portion (60-first portion, Fig. 2f-Annotated) and the second portion (60-second portion, Fig. 2f-Annotated).
Re: Claim 2, Verheijden discloses the microdevice of claim 1, wherein: the metal structure (60) further comprises a fourth portion (60-fourth portion a portion of 60 on right side in [0070], Fig. 2f-Annotated) substantially parallel to the top surface of the second pedestal (30-R Fig. 2f-Annotated), the fourth portion (60-fourth portion) extending away from the first pedestal (30-M Fig. 2f-Annotated), the fourth portion (60-fourth portion) being at a substantially similar height (Fig. 2f-Annotated) of the second portion (60-second portion); and a fifth portion (60-fifth portion a portion of 60 connecting 60-first portion and 60-fourth portion in [0070], Fig. 2f-Annotated) connecting the first portion (60-first portion) and the fourth portion (60-fourth portion).
Re: Claim 3, Verheijden discloses the microdevice of claim 2, further comprising a third pedestal (30-L a left portion of 30, in [0067], Fig. 2f-Annotated) comprising a second protrusion (30-L-Up a left portion of 30 above to 30-L, in [0067], Fig. 2f-Annotated); and wherein the metal structure (60 Fig. 2f) further comprises: a sixth portion (60-sixth portion a portion of 60 on left side surrounding 30-L-Up in [0070], Fig. 2f-Annotated) surrounding the second protrusion (30-L-Up); and a seventh portion (60- seventh portion a portion of 60 connecting 60-fourth portion and 60-second portion in [0070], Fig. 2f-Annotated) connecting the fourth portion (60-fourth portion) and the second portion (60-second portion); and wherein the first (30-M), second (30-R), and third (30-L) pedestals comprise polysilicon (30 is made of Poly-Si [0067], Fig. 2f).
Re: Claim 4, Verheijden discloses the microdevice of claim 1, wherein the first protrusion is formed by etching the second pedestal (the layer 30 is formed by patterning using lithography followed by etching in [0067]).
Re: Claim 7, Verheijden discloses the microdevice of claim 1, wherein the first protrusion (30-R-Up, Fig. 2-f-Annotated) comprises a trench (trench surrounding 30-R-Up, Figs. 2e, 2f-Annotated) and the first portion (60-first portion Fig. 2-f-Annotated) fills the trench (Fig. 2-f-Annotated).
Re: Claim 9, Verheijden discloses the microdevice of claim 1, wherein the first protrusion (30-R-Up, Fig. 2f-Annotated) height is at least 20% of the first protrusion (30-R-Up) width (the height is at least 20% of the width, Fig. 2f-Annotated-I, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
266
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Verheijden’s Figure 2f-Annotated-I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verheijden.
Re: Claim 5, Verheijden discloses the microdevice of claim 1,
Verheijden does not disclose wherein a bottom area of the first protrusion is greater than a top area of the first protrusion.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed
“bottom area of the first protrusion greater than a top area of the first protrusion” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed bottom area of the first protrusion greater than a top area of the first protrusion). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed “difference of the bottom area of the first protrusion” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. At meantime, Verheijden discloses “a bottom area of the first protrusion similar to a top area of the first protrusion”, therefore, the relation of the bottom area and top area of the first protrusion is a result effective variable. It has been held that is not inventive to discover the optimum relation between the bottom area and top area of the first protrusion by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a bottom area of the first protrusion greater than a top area of the first protrusion to the rest of the claimed invention to provide the required encapsulation shell of the device forming a patterned layer using lithography followed by etching [0067].
Re: Claim 6, Verheijden discloses the microdevice of claim 1,
Verheijden does not disclose wherein a top area of the first protrusion is greater than a bottom area of the first protrusion.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed
“top area of the first protrusion greater than a bottom area of the first protrusion” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed top area of the first protrusion greater than a bottom area of the first protrusion). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed “difference of a top area of the first protrusion” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. At meantime, Verheijden discloses “a top area of the first protrusion similar to a bottom area of the first protrusion”, therefore, the relation of a bottom area and a top area of the first protrusion is a result effective variable. It has been held that is not inventive to discover the optimum relation between a bottom area and a top area of the first protrusion by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a top area of the first protrusion is greater than a bottom area of the first protrusion to the rest of the claimed invention to provide the required encapsulation shell of the device forming a patterned layer using lithography followed by etching [0067].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verheijden in view of Van Schaijk (US 20100264498 A1, hereinafter Van Schaijk).
Re: Claim 8, Verheijden discloses the microdevice of claim 1,
Verheijden does not expressly disclose wherein the metal structure is coated by a protective dielectric film, the protective dielectric film comprising at least one of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, fluorosilicate glass, undoped silicate glass, or borophosphosilicate glass.
However, in the same semiconductor device field of endeavor, Van Schaijk discloses a metal structure (20 metal body in [0033], Fig. 9) coated by a protective dielectric film (23 dielectric layer in [0033], Fig. 6-9), the protective dielectric film comprising at least one of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, fluorosilicate glass, undoped silicate glass, or borophosphosilicate glass (23 made of silicon dioxide material in [0033], Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the Van Schaijk’s feature of the metal structure is coated by a protective dielectric film, the protective dielectric film comprising at least one of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, fluorosilicate glass, undoped silicate glass, or borophosphosilicate glass to Verheijden’s device to include additional connections on a top surface of the device ([0033,0034], Van Schaijk).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 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 1 and any intervening claims.
Re: claim 10, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered
pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner's knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: recited features of the device of claim 1, “…wherein: the metal structure is a first metal structure, the device further comprises: a second metal structure parallel to the first metal structure; the first metal structure and the second metal structure have a comb width; and a distance between the first metal structure and the second metal structure is greater than one third of the comb width” as recited in claim 10, in combination with remaining features of base claim 1.
Claim(s) 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior arts to the present invention are Verheijden et al. (US 20090267166 A1) and Hung et al. (US 20210215550 A1).
Verheijden discloses a micro-device and manufacturing with a cavity, the micro-device comprising a substrate, a porous dielectric layer, and seal layer. This method may be used in the manufacture of various micro-devices with a cavity, i.e. MEMS devices.
Hung discloses a MEMS thermal sensor including comb-shaped capacitive sensing electrodes positioned facing each other on a substrate 1. Sensing electrodes can have a plurality of electrode fingers. The plurality of electrode fingers extends in a direction (e.g., Y-axis) substantially perpendicular to the direction (e.g., X-axis) along which an electrode bar extends.
Re: Independent Claim 20, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to provide:
a protective layer over the plurality of combs; and a structure layer comprising a protrusion on its top surface, the protrusion being located at least one micrometer from an edge of the structure layer, the structure layer being covered by a conformal dielectric layer, wherein: each of the plurality of combs comprise connections that surround the protrusion; a height of the protrusion is at least 20% of the a width of the protrusion; the plurality of combs comprise at least one of AlCu, TiN, TaN, AlSiCu, or Cu; the plurality of combs have a comb width; a distance between combs of the plurality of combs is at least one-third of the comb width; and the protective layer comprises at least one of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, fluorosilicate glass, undoped silicate glass, or borophosphosilicate glass.
Missing elements in the closest art gives rise to the innovation in the current invention. Therefore, the claim 20 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Inaba et al. (US 20150340968 A1) teaches “MEMS STRUCTURE, ELECTRONIC APPARATUS, AND MOVING OBJECT”. This document is related to a MEMS structure including: a substrate; a lower electrode disposed on the substrate; an upper electrode including a movable portion disposed facing and spaced from the lower electrode; and a reinforcing portion disposed in the upper electrode so as to extend along an extending direction of the movable portion, the reinforcing portion being composed of a material having a higher Young's modulus than the upper electrode.
Nakamura (US 20150076626 A1) teaches “ELECTRONIC DEVICE”. This document is related to an electronic device including a substrate, a first electrode provided stationary above the substrate and used for a variable capacitor, a second electrode provided movable above or below the first electrode and used for the variable capacitor, a first protective insulation film provided on a first surface of the first electrode, the first surface facing the second electrode, and a second protective insulation film provided on a second surface of the second electrode, the second surface facing the first electrode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA MILENA RODRIGUEZ VILLANUEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-1936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am-5:00pm (EST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/SANDRA MILENA RODRIGUEZ VILLANUEVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898