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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the claims 1-15,21-25 in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (US Pub No. 20170203962), in view of Jennings et al (Thin solid Films 310(1997) 156-160).
With respect to claim 1, Cheng et al discloses a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) structure (104,Fig.2) overlying a substrate (112); a capping structure over the MEMS structure (130), wherein the capping structure at least partially defines a cavity (128), wherein the MEMS structure is disposed in the cavity (108); and an outgas structure adjacent to the cavity (110). However, Cheng et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the outgas structure comprises an amorphous material. On the other hand, Jennings et al discloses that hydrogenated amorphous silicon releases gas in response to heating (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Cheng et al according to the teachings of the Jennings et al such that hydrogenated amorphous silicon is used as the outgas material, because it’s availability in the industry, therefore, no new fabrication equipment would be required.
Claim(s) 2,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (US Pub No. 20170203962), in view of Jennings et al (Thin solid Films 310(1997) 156-160), Lin et al (US Pub No. 20140225206)
With respect to claim 2, Cheng et al discloses a bumper structure (140) underlying the MEMS structure (Fig.2). However, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein an upper surface of the outgas structure is vertically offset from an upper surface of the bumper structure in a direction towards the substrate. On the other hand, Lin et al discloses that the outgas layer (36,Fig.2) is attached to the capping layer (34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that the outgas layer is formed above the MEM structure and offset from the upper surface of the bumper, in order to avoid damaging outgas layer during fabrication of the MEM structure.
With respect to claim 5, Cheng et al discloses a plurality of conductive bond structures disposed between the capping structure and the substrate (124,144,142, applicant has not specified what is conductive here, is it conductive of heat or electricity. For the purpose of this office action examiner has assumed that conductive is heat conductive which any material may be used for conduction of the heat), and Lin et al discloses that the outgas wherein a lower surface of the outgas structure (lower surface of 36) is disposed above a lower surface of the conductive bond structures (lower portion of 34 or 140).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (US Pub No. 20170203962), in view of Jennings et al (Thin solid Films 310(1997) 156-160), Lin et al (US Pub No. 20140225206), in view of Huang et al (US Pub No. 20160060103).
With respect to claim 6, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose a getter layer disposed between the capping structure and the substrate, wherein a lower surface of the getter layer is aligned with the lower surface of the conductive bond structures. On the other hand, Huang et al discloses a getter layer (132,Fig.2A) disposed between the capping structure (140) and the substrate (bottom portion 102), wherein a lower surface of the getter layer (lower surface of 132) is aligned with the lower surface of the conductive bond structures (bottom portion of 120a aligned either with 126 or 142). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above according to the teachings of the Huang et al such that getter layer is formed in the cavities having bottom surface aligned with the lower surface of the conductive bond structures, in order to capture gas effectively and thereby adjust the pressure in the cavity to a desire level.
16-20. (Canceled)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 116977588. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 1, the parented case discloses a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) structure overlying a substrate (claim 15); a capping structure over the MEMS structure (claims 15), wherein the capping structure at least partially defines a cavity (claim 15) , wherein the MEMS structure is disposed in the cavity (claim 15); and an outgas structure adjacent to the cavity (claim 17), wherein the outgas structure comprises an amorphous material (Claim 18).
With respect to claim 21, the patented case discloses a dielectric structure overlying a first substrate (claim 15) ; a second substrate overlying the dielectric structure (claim 15); a capping structure overlying the second substrate (claim 15), wherein a cavity is arranged between the capping structure and the first substrate (claim 15); a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) structure in the cavity (claim 15); and an outgas structure in the dielectric structure and abutting the cavity (claim 15). Claim 15 does not explicitly disclose wherein the outgas structure comprises a curved upper surface. On the other hand, claim 9 discloses that the outgas surface is curved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify claim 15 according to the teachings of the claim 9, such that the outgas surface is curved as a design choice.
With respect to claim 22, the patented case discloses wherein the second substrate comprises a plurality of protrusions extending below a top surface of the dielectric structure (claim 15), wherein the integrated chip further comprises: a plurality of conductive bond structures disposed between the plurality of protrusions and the first substrate (claim 15), wherein the conductive bond structures line sidewalls of a corresponding protrusion in the plurality of protrusions (claim 15).
With respect to claim 23, claim 17 discloses that the outgas layer is planarized; however, it does not discloses wherein a height of the outgas structure is less than a height of the dielectric structure. On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the claims cited above such that the height of the outgas layer is less than the dielectric structure, in order to have an adequate planarization process, thereby outgas layer would have a smooth surface.
Claims 2,5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11697588 in view of Cheng et al (US Pub No. 20170203962), in view of Jennings et al (Thin solid Films 310(1997) 156-160), Lin et al (US Pub No. 20140225206).
With respect to claim 2, the patented case 11697588 the claims 1-20 does not disclose, a bumper structure underlying the MEMS structure, wherein an upper surface of the outgas structure is vertically offset an upper surface of the bumper structure in a direction towards the substrate. On the other hand, Cheng et al discloses a bumper structure (140) underlying the MEMS structure (Fig.2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that a bumper structure underlying the MEMS structure, for the safety purposes. However, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein an upper surface of the outgas structure is vertically offset from an upper surface of the bumper structure in a direction towards the substrate. On the other hand, Lin et al discloses that the outgas layer (36,Fig.2) is attached to the capping layer (34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that the outgas layer is formed above the MEM structure and offset from the upper surface of the bumper, in order to avoid damaging outgas layer during fabrication of the MEM structure.
With respect to claim 5, Cheng et al discloses a plurality of conductive bond structures disposed between the capping structure and the substrate (124,144,142, applicant has not specified what is conductive here, is it conductive of heat or electricity. For the purpose of this office action examiner has assumed that conductive is heat conductive which any material may be used for conduction of the heat), and Lin et al discloses that the outgas wherein a lower surface of the outgas structure (lower surface of 36) is disposed above a lower surface of the conductive bond structures (lower portion of 34 or 140).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11697588 in view Cheng et al (US Pub No. 20170203962), in view of Jennings et al (Thin solid Films 310(1997) 156-160), Lin et al (US Pub No. 20140225206), in view of Huang et al (US Pub No. 20160060103).
With respect to claim 6, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose a getter layer disposed between the capping structure and the substrate, wherein a lower surface of the getter layer is aligned with the lower surface of the conductive bond structures. On the other hand, Huang et al discloses a getter layer (132,Fig.2A) disposed between the capping structure (140) and the substrate (bottom portion 102), wherein a lower surface of the getter layer (lower surface of 132) is aligned with the lower surface of the conductive bond structures (bottom portion of 120a aligned either with 126 or 142). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above according to the teachings of the Huang et al such that getter layer is formed in the cavities having bottom surface aligned with the lower surface of the conductive bond structures, in order to capture gas effectively and thereby adjust the pressure in the cavity to a desire level.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4,7-8,24-25 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.
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
The following is the reason for allowance of the claim 9, pertinent arts do not alone or in combination disclose: a dielectric structure overlying a first substrate; a second substrate overlying the dielectric structure, wherein the second substrate and the dielectric structure at least partially define a first cavity; a first microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) structure disposed within the first cavity; an outgas structure disposed in the dielectric structure and having a surface abutting the first cavity; and a first getter layer disposed within the first cavity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI N NARAGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5720. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Flether can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/ALI NARAGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2817