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 group I, claims 1-9, in ”Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 11/07/2025”, is acknowledged.
This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, of which, non-elected claims 11-20 are withdrawn, and elected claims 1-9 are examined on their merits.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (26; Fig 2C; [0028] or C 5, L 65-67) = (element 26; Figure No. 2C; Paragraph No. [0028S]) or Column No 5, Line Nos. 65-67). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” or “Column No, Line Nos" 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. The primary reference later citation may not be preceded by the inventor tag, wherein the other reference citation will carry inventor tag. These conventions are used throughout this document
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar; Uppili et al. (US 20070099395 A1) hereinafter Sridhar; in view of Malvern; Alan (US 20200158751 A1) hereinafter Malvern.
Regarding claim 1. Sridhar teaches a microelectromechanical element comprising (see the entire document; Fig 2C along with other relevant figures that refers back; specifically, as cited below):
PNG
media_image1.png
216
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
216
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sridhar Figure 2C flipped and Fig 2C (original)
a plurality of microstructures ({26,2}; Fig 2C, as depicted in flipped view, supra); [0028]; first cited as 6, 2 in Fig 1D; or [0021]) of wafers (26, 2) bonded to each other, such that a gap (27; Fig 2C) is closed by bonding ([0028] bonding techniques used here include anodic bond) of the microstructures ({26,2});
mobile structure parts (1; Fig 2C; first cited in [0020] as MEMS; [0026] further asserts wafer 26 needs to bond to cap substrate 2 in the field areas below the top-most surface of DEVICE layer 1 on the substrate wafer 2) suspended to move within the closed gap (27);
at least one internal electrode (12 within via 11; Fig 2c; [0037]; first cited in [0022-0023]) arranged in the gap (27) and (see below for “configured to detect or actuate movement” of the mobile structure parts (1)); and
patterned regions of wafer material (0026] as wafer 26 needs to bond to cap substrate 2 in the field areas below the top-most surface of DEVICE layer 1, it was patterned to accommodate 1) and glass material ( of substrate wafer 2 both wafer material [0020] another glass wafer 6; and glass material(of microstructure 2 is of glass material [0028]) are synonymous as construed from the same microstructure 2 as relevant to claimed matter “plurality of microstructures of wafers (Claim 1 Line 2)”, the regions of glass material (the region of microstructure 2 of a glass material [0028] ) including at least a first glass region (region of 2 surrounding bond material with 26; Fig 2c; [0034]) comprising a first glass material (compound of glass and bonding material, examiner note that Anodic bonding of glass-to-glass creates strong, hermetic seals for MEMS/microfluidics by heating two clean glass surfaces (like borosilicate) while applying a high DC voltage, causing mobile sodium ions to migrate, leaving an oxygen-rich interface that forms strong bonds, often using intermediate layers like polysilicon or sputtered films for enhanced bonding or to bridge different material types. ) and a second glass region (“region of 2 underlying 27 and 1”) comprising a second glass material (compound of glass and metal [0020]),
wherein the first glass material (of 2, underlying 26) enables anodic bonding ([0028] bonding techniques used here include anodic bond) with the wafer material ( of 26), and
wherein the second glass material (glass +metal; [0020] metal) has an alkali metal content that is less than an alkali metal content of the first glass material (of bonding compound glass +oxide; (Examiner note that it is inherent property with the material cited, since a material (glass + metal) with very low alkali content, making it "low-alkali" or even "non-alkali" glass, contrasting with typical bonded glasses,soda-lime, borosilicate, that use for bonding alkali oxides as fluxes to lower melting points, with lower alkali content improving chemical/thermal resistance and high alkali content increasing expansion and corrosion, often found in specialized glasses like those for electronics or labware where stability matters).
As indicated above, Sridhar is silent on electrode (12) “configured to detect or actuate movement of the mobile structure parts (1).
However, in the analogous art, Malvern teaches, in (Fig 1; [0052]). an accelerometer 2 being constructed from a silicon substrate 4 ( a proof mass 12made out of that [0064])) which is ‘sandwiched’ between an upper glass substrate 6 and a lower glass substrate 8 (i.e. glass layer) to form a hermetic (i.e. air-tight) assembly bu anodically bonding ([0056]), wherein (Fig 5; [0066]) electrodes 42 is provide (formed from via (38,40] on glass substrate 6, and [0062] proof mass 12 comprises an upper set of moving capacitive electrode fingers 50; Vias 38/40 provide electrical connection 42/44, and drive PWM signal, in effect electrode (42) “configured to actuate movement of the mobile structure parts (12). Further [0067 this downhole via 36 is connected to an output signal detector 58 which detects a pick-off signal from the accelerometer 2 which represents displacement of the proof mass 12 in the z-axis direction, in effect electrode detect signal from mobile structure parts (12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure electrode 12 of Sridhar as per teaching Sridhar , and thereby the combination of (Sridhar and Malvern)’ electrode (12) “configured to detect or actuate movement of the mobile structure parts (1), since this configuration will at least, make Sridhar microelectromechanical element usable for an application.
Regarding claim 2. The combination of (Sridhar and Malvern) as applied to the microelectromechanical element according to claim 1, further teaches
wherein the first glass region (354) and the second glass region (“region of 2 underlying 27 and 1”) are in one ({26,2}; Fig 2C) of the plurality of microstructures ({26,2}), and
wherein a glass transition temperature ((Tg)) of the first glass region (glass +post bonding residues (oxide)) is lower (see rejection of claim 1, above, as the Anodic bonding of glass-to-glass causes mobile sodium ions to migrate, leaving an oxygen-rich interface which is characterized by lower (Tg) than glass + metal interface) than a glass transition temperature of the second glass region (Glass +metal)..
Examiner like to note that one of the one of ordinary skill in the art, would know the difference is primarily due to the distinct bonding mechanisms and resulting atomic structures at these interfaces:
Glass-Oxide Interface: A remaining or intentionally formed oxide layer on the metal surface creates a gradual transition zone where metallic bonding is progressively substituted by the ionic-covalent bonding of the glass. The dissolution of the oxide into the glass leads to a less constrained, less densely packed structure (increased free volume) at the interface. Increased free volume and molecular mobility generally result in a lower \(T_{g}\). The presence of certain metal oxides in the glass can also inherently lower the glass transition temperature of the glass composition itself.
Glass-Metal Interface: A direct glass-to-metal interface, often achieved through rapid cooling or specific bonding techniques (like diffusion bonding below (Tg), tends to be more abrupt and better constrained by the rigid, crystalline metal structure. This high degree of constraint and limited atomic inter-diffusion leads to a higher effective \(T_{g}\) in the immediate interfacial region compared to the oxide interface.
Regarding claim 3. The combination of (Sridhar and Malvern) as applied to the microelectromechanical element according to claim 1, further teaches
wherein the first glass region (region of 2 surrounding bond material with 26; Fig 2c; [0034])) and the second glass region (region of 26 surrounding bond material with 2; Fig 2c; [0034]) are in different microstructures (2 and 6).
Regarding claim 4. The combination of (Sridhar and Malvern) as applied to the microelectromechanical element according to claim 1, further teaches wherein:
the plurality of microstructures ({26,2}; Fig 2C, as depicted in flipped view, in claim 1 rejection) include a first microstructure (26) and a second microstructure (2),
the mobile structure parts (1) are in the first microstructure (26; fig 2C),
the gap (27; Fig 2C) is closed by bonding the first microstructure (26) to the second microstructure (2; first cited in [0020] as MEMS; [0026] further asserts wafer 26 needs to bond to cap substrate 2 in the field areas below the top-most surface of DEVICE layer 1 on the substrate wafer 2), and
the second glass region (region of 2 surrounding bond material with 26; Fig 2c; [0034]) is in the second microstructure (2).
Regarding claim 5. The combination of (Sridhar and Malvern) as applied to the microelectromechanical element according to claim 4, further teaches, wherein the at least one internal electrode (12 within via 11; Fig 2c; [0037]; first cited in [0022-0023]) is on a first side of the second microstructure (2).
Regarding claim 6. The combination of (Sridhar and Malvern) as applied to the microelectromechanical element according to claim 5, further teaches, wherein:
the second microstructure (2) includes at least one external electrode (portion of 12 external to via 11 and overlying 2) on a second side (top of 2) of the second microstructure (2),
a through via (11; Fig 2c) formed of the wafer material connects the at least one internal electrode (12) to the at least one external electrode (portion of 12 external to via 11 and overlying 2) , and
the second glass region (of 2) surrounds the through via (11).
Regarding claim 7. The combination of (Sridhar and Malvern) as applied to the microelectromechanical element according to claim 6, further teaches, wherein the second microstructure (350) is a cap microstructure that includes a plurality of through vias (358), electrically isolated from each other by regions of second glass material.
Regarding claim 8. The combination of (Sridhar and Malvern) as applied to the microelectromechanical element according to claim 1, further teaches, wherein the alkali metal content of the first glass material (Glass + oxide of 2) in form of oxides is 1 wt% or more (obvious from claims 1-2 rejection rationale).
Regarding claim 9. The combination of (Sridhar and Malvern) as applied to the microelectromechanical element according to claim 4, further teaches, wherein the alkali metal content of the second glass material (Glass + metal of 2) in form of oxides is less than 0.5 wt% (obvious from claim 1-2 rejection rationale).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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 M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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 Thursday 8.30 A.M -5.00 P.M. 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, 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
December 23, 2025