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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3-9, 12-18 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sukumaran (2018/0254239).
Regarding Claim 3: Sukumaran teaches a method of preventing corrosion associated with an electrically-conductive through-glass via (TGV), comprising: forming a TGV (203) in a glass substrate (201) for use in a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (a glass substrate is commonly known to be used in MEMs devices as per references below), the TGV having a first end and a second end, and at least partially comprising copper (paragraph [0033]); applying a conductive barrier layer (205) on the first end of the TGV and/or the second end of the TGV (paragraph [0033]), further comprising extending the conductive barrier layer over the first end of the TGV (fig. 2I), and over at least a portion of the glass substrate encompassing the end of the TGV (fig. 2I), such that the conductive barrier layer overlaps a boundary between the TGV and the glass substrate (fig. 2I).
Regarding Claim 4: Sukumaran teaches applying the conductive barrier layer using an electroless plating process (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 5: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is electroless palladium and immersion gold (EPIG) (this is considered as product by process as it is merely the process by which the top plating layer of Gold is applied and as per MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), as well as this is a commonly known process in the industry).
Regarding Claim 6: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is immersion gold, electroless palladium, and immersion gold (IGEPIG) (this is considered as product by process as it is merely the process by which the top plating layer of Gold is applied and as per MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), as well as this is a commonly known process in the industry).
Regarding Claim 7: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is Electroless Nickel and Immersion Gold (ENIG) (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 8: Sukumaran teaches wherein forming the TGV in the glass substrate further comprises forming a planar TGV in the glass substrate (fig. 2I).
Regarding Claim 9: Sukumaran teaches wherein forming the TGV in the glass substrate further comprises forming a pinched TGV in the glass substrate as per MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), as well as this is a commonly known process in the industry).
Regarding Claim 12: Sukumaran teaches an electrically-conductive through-glass via (TGV) structure, comprising: a TGV (203) formed in a glass substrate (201) for use in a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (a glass substrate is commonly known to be used in MEMs devices as per references below), the TGV having a first end and a second end, and at least partially comprising copper (paste in paragraph [0033]); and a conductive barrier layer (205 and paragraph [0036]) applied on the first end of the TGV and/or the second end of the TGV (paragraph [0033]), wherein the conductive barrier layer extends over the first end of the TGV (fig. 2I), and over at least a portion of the glass substrate encompassing the end of the TGV (fig. 2I), such that the conductive barrier layer overlaps a boundary between the TGV and the glass substrate (fig. 2I).
Regarding Claim 13: Sukumaran teaches wherein the conductive barrier layer is applied using an electroless plating process (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 14: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is electroless palladium and immersion gold (EPIG) (this is considered as product by process as it is merely the process by which the top plating layer of Gold is applied and as per MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), as well as this is a commonly known process in the industry).
Regarding Claim 15: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is immersion gold, electroless palladium, and immersion gold (IGEPIG) (this is considered as product by process as it is merely the process by which the top plating layer of Gold is applied and as per MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), as well as this is a commonly known process in the industry).
Regarding Claim 16: Sukumaran teaches wherein the electroless plating technique is Electroless Nickel and Immersion Gold (ENIG) (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 17: Sukumaran teaches wherein the TGV is a planar TGV (fig. 2I).
Regarding Claim 18: Sukumaran teaches wherein the TGV is a pinched TGV (this is considered as product by process as it is merely the process by which the TGV is formed in the glass substrate as per MPEP 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), as well as this is a commonly known process in the industry).
Regarding Claim 21: Sukumaran teaches applying a metal layer (213 contains metal) over the conductive barrier layer (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 22: Sukumaran teaches applying a metal layer (213 contains metal) over the conductive barrier layer (paragraph [0036]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vandemeer (2015/0353348).
Regarding Claim 19: Vandemeer teaches a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) component, comprising: a glass substrate (58 and paragraph [0027]) that hosts a MEMS device (70); a glass lid (56) disposed on the glass substrate (58) and encompassing the MEMS device (70) within a cavity (fig. 2); a through-glass via (TGV) (89) formed in the glass lid (56), the TGV having a first end at an exterior of the glass lid (fig. 2), a second end electrically coupled to the MEMS device (see the routing of lines 84), and at least partially comprising copper (131 and paragraph [0039]); and a conductive barrier layer (136) applied on the first end of the TGV and/or the second end of the TGV (paragraph [0039]), wherein the conductive barrier layer extends over the first end of the TGV (136 is part of 106 shown in fig. 2), and over at least a portion of the exterior of the glass lid (see 106 shown in fig. 2), such that the conductive barrier layer overlaps a boundary between the TGV and the glass lid (see 106 shown in fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 in conjunction with the RCE filed on 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments by the applicant are regarding the finality of the most recent office action being improper wherein the examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to the previous amendments made by the applicant on 4/6/2026 being the necessary reason for the finality of the office action the applicant points to sections of the MPEP as forms or argument. In regards to MPEP 706.07(a) the applicant quotes "[s]econd or any subsequent actions on the merits shall be final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant's amendment of the claims ...". It is noted by the examiner that while dependent claims were combined with independent claims this still changes the scope of the claims to be looked at as a whole along with dependent claims and newly added claims. This is viewed by the examiner as a necessary reason to make a new grounds of rejection or even a new interpretation of a previous art used in the rejection rendering the arguments moot. In regards to MPEP 707.07(f) the applicant quotes "[w]here the applicant traverses any rejection, the examiner should, if they repeat the rejection, take note of the applicant's argument and answer the substance of it.". It is noted that the applicant seems to be arguing that a new rejection was made but also that the rejection was repeated and therefore the arguments should be responded to and are not moot. These arguments seem to be contradictory in nature, wherein the examiner stands by the fact that amendments were made to the claims wherein the newly presented independent claims and dependent claims were changed to require the prior art to be used and seen in a different way necessitating the new grounds of rejection and rendering all arguments moot at that time. Specifically in regards to claim 3 Sukumaran was interpreted in a new way as necessitated by the amendment to the claims. In regards to claims 19-20 Vandemeer was interpreted in a new way as necessitated by the amendment to the claims. While the examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments, they are now rendered moot as after the filling of a Request for Continues Examination (RCE) on 8/4/2026 this office action is a Non-Final Rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in the notice of references PTO-892 but not relied upon above are related as they include multiple types of MEMS switch devices in different configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights